* Institute of Botany III
Institut für Zoophysiologie, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
Correspondence: E-mail: w.martin{at}uni-duesseldorf.de.
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key Words: sulfide-quinone reductase endosymbiosis hydrogenosomes electron transport chain anaerobiosis
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The terminal acceptor for electrons stemming from sulfide in mitochondria depends upon the sulfide concentration itself. This is because sulfide is a strong inhibitor of oxygen respiration (National Research Council 1979; Grieshaber and Völkel 1998). At sulfide concentrations below approximately 20 µM, electrons from sulfide can be donated to O2 as the terminal acceptor. Sulfide concentrations in the range of 10 to 50 µM inhibit the electron transfer from cytochrome c to complex IV (Bagarinao and Vetter 1990; Grieshaber and Völkel 1998). At higher sulfide concentrations, mitochondrial complex IV is blocked and the electrons are donated to alternative, yet unknown, acceptors, possibly involving a similar alternative oxidase as is found in plants (Völkel and Grieshaber 1996a; Parrino, Kraus, and Doeller 2000). Since sulfide concentrations can reach approximately 20 mM in environments inhabited by marine invertebrates (Fenchel and Riedel 1970; Völkel, Hauschild, and Grieshaber 1995), and since sulfide is a potent toxin, both the energy-producing and detoxifying functions of sulfide oxidation are essential to mitochondrial function in these organisms.
In eubacteria, sulfide oxidation is commonly catalyzed by the flavoprotein, sulfide:quinone oxidoreductase (SQR) (also called sulfide quinone reductase). The biochemistry of eubacterial SQR has been characterized in some detail (Reinartz et al. 1998; Griesbeck, Hauska, and Schütz 2000). Eubacterial SQR catalyzes the reaction H2S + Ubiquinone [S±0] + UbiquinoneH2 (Griesbeck et al. 2002). The enzyme has been purified and cloned from Rhodobacter capsulatus (Schütz et al. 1997) and Oscillatoria limnetica (Arieli et al. 1994) and biochemically characterized in Chlorobium limicola (Shahak et al. 1992), Rhodobacter capsulatus (Shahak et al. 1994), Paracoccus denitrificans (Schütz et al. 1998), Allochromatium vinosum (Reinartz et al. 1998), and Aquifex aeolicus (Nübel et al. 2000) (reviewed in Griesbeck, Hauska, and Schütz 2000). Bacterial SQR is a single polypeptide with an apparent molecular mass of 48 to 55 kDa, is possibly active as a dimer, is membrane associated, belongs to the glutathione reductase family of flavoproteins, and is inhibited by quinone analogs at micromolar or nanomolar concentrations (Arieli et al. 1994; Schütz et al. 1997; Griesbeck et al. 2002). Rhodobacter SQR was shown to reside in the periplasm (Schütz et al. 1997). In Chlorobium and Rhodobacter, electrons from sulfide enter into the electron transport chain of anaerobic photosynthesis through SQR (Griesbeck, Hauska, and Schütz 2000; Griesbeck et al. 2002). In the nonphotosynthetic
-proteobacterium Paracoccus denitrificans (Schütz et al. 1998) and in Aquifex aeolicus (Nübel et al. 2000), SQR introduces electrons from sulfide into the respiratory chain (reviewed in Griesbeck, Hauska, and Schütz 2000).
Mitochondrial SQR activity has been indirectly measured in many organisms through the mitochodrion-dependent formation of thiosulfate from sulfide, for example, in the annelids Heteromastus filiformis and Arenicola marina as well as in the molluscs Solemya reidi and Geukensia demissa (Oeschger and Visman 1994; reviewed in Grieshaber and Völkel 1998), but has not been purified to homogeneity from any multicellular eukaryote. A functional mitochondrial SQR was, however, recently cloned and characterized from the ascomycete Schizosaccharomyces pombe (Vande Weghe and Ow 1999). S. pombe SQR showed marked sequence similarity to the SQR purified and extensively characterized at the biochemical level from the -proteobacterium Rhodobacter capsulatus (Schütz et al. 1997) and was furthermore shown to be imported into and functional in S. pombe mitochondria (Vande Weghe and Ow 1999). Mitochondrial SQR activity has been most extensively studied in marine invertebrates that inhabit sulfide-rich intertidal sediments, most notably the annelid lugworm Arenicola marina and the ribbed mussel Geukensia demissa (Völkel and Grieshaber 1996a; Parrino, Kraus, and Doeller 2000). Both in those organisms (Doeller et al. 1999; Doeller, Grieshaber, and Kraus 2001; Völkel and Grieshaber 1996b) and in recent biochemical studies of SQR from chicken mitochondria (Yong and Searcy 2001) it was shown that mitochondrial sulfide consumption was coupled to ATP synthesis. Since chickens do not inhabit sulfide-rich environments, the role of SQR in their mitochondria is probably not ATP production, but may involve detoxification. The primary oxidation product of sulfide produced by mitochondrial SQR is still not known with certainty. The two-electron reaction would yield either elemental sulfur (S±0) or sulfanes (HSSnH) as the primary oxidation product. The four-electron reaction would yield thiosulfate (S2O32-), which is the most commonly detected oxidation product (O'Brien and Vetter 1990; Völkel and Grieshaber 1992; Johns et al. 1997). Recent results by Yong and Searcy (2001) suggest that sulfanes might be produced during mitochondrial sulfide oxidation, but sulfanes have still not been directly detected.
The ability of mitochondria to perform sulfide oxidation for ATP synthesis raises the question as to the evolutionary origin of eukaryotic SQR genes, particularly from the standpoint of endosymbiotic theory (recently reviewed in Martin et al. 2001). In general, there are four simple possibilities for the origin of mitochondrial sulfide oxidation in eukaryotes. (1) The host that acquired the mitochondrion could have possessed an SQR enzyme that was retargeted to the mitochondrion to become functional there; in this case eukaryotic SQR should be related to archaebacterial SQR because the DNA replication (Tye 2000), translation (Lecompte et al. 2002), transcription (Reeve 2003), and chromatin-packaging systems (Reeve 2003) of eukaryotes are specifically related to their archaebacterial homologs. (2) The mitochondrial symbiont could have possessed the SQR enzyme, whereby the gene must have been transferred to the host's chromosomes, since SQR is not encoded in any mitochondrial DNA; in this case eukaryotic SQR should reveal a single eubacterial origin. (3) Neither host nor symbiont may have possessed SQR, and the SQR gene could have been acquired through horizontal gene transfer in organisms that inhabit sulfidic environments; in this case eukaryotic SQR should reveal multiple origins from diverse prokaryotic donors. (4) Eukaryotic SQR is an invention specific to the eukaryotic lineage; in this case eukaryotic SQR should be unrelated to prokaryotic SQR. The phylogenetic distribution of SQR-related enzymes among various genomes has been previously studied (Vande Weghe and Ow 1999; Griesbeck, Hauska, and Schütz 2000), but the phylogeny of SQR itself has not.
SQR was almost certainly an essential and possibly ubiquitous enzyme during the phase of eukaryotic evolution from 2 to 1 billion years ago, since newer geochemical evidence indicates that the Earth's ocean waters were anoxic and very sulfidic during that time (Canfield 1998; Shen, Buick, and Canfield 2001; Anbar and Knoll 2002), findings that underscore the evolutionary importance of anaerobic biochemistry in both ancient and modern eukaryotes (Tielens et al. 2002; Embley et al. 2003). Here, we report the occurrence of SQR and SQR-related enzymes among genomes of eubacteria, archaebacteria, and eukaryotes and examine the phylogeny of SQR, with particular attention to the evolutionary origin of the eukaryotic nuclear genes for mitochondrial sulfide:quinone oxidoreductase.
![]() |
Materials and Methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
The SQR homologs from Nitrosomonas europaea, Burkholderia fungorum, and Ralstonia metallidurans possess a well-conserved approximately 180amino acid open reading frame (ORF) N-terminal to the SQR domain that is present as an independent ORF of unknown function in several prokaryotic genomes (fig. 2) but does not always co-occur with SQR. This N-terminal ORF contains one strictly conserved cysteine and an additional cysteine conserved in some sequences (fig. 2). Homologs of the N-terminal ORF from Agrobacterium, Sinorhizobium, Mesorhizobium, and Xylella are fused with yet another approximate 240amino acid ORF of unknown function (fig. 3) that shares no similarity with SQR and that is annotated in several entries as a member of the metallo-ß-lactamase family by virtue of its similarity to the PFAM (Bateman et al. 2002) lactamase B family (PF00753; http://pfam.wustl.edu/), which includes several thiolesterases.
|
|
|
However, the 21 OTU data (fig. 4b) was still highly divergent, with between group (I, II, and III) amino acid identity of sequences from the multiple alignment in the range of only 20%. To examine the possible monophyly of eukaryotic SQR more closely, we investigated the phylogeny of the 18 sequences belonging to group II in figure 4a. This data set (18 OTUs, 681 sites including gaps) was inspected for amino acid compositional bias, whereby P. aeruginosa, R. solanacearum, and Staphylococcus failed the frequency distribution test at P = 0.95. Removal of these sequences from the data and rechecking revealed that Rhodospirillum failed, leaving 14 OTUs, all of which passed the amino acid frequency distribution test. The resulting alignment (14 OTUs, 681 sites) contained better sequence conservation with 43 invariant sites and all aligned sequences being at least 30% identical in all comparisons, although this is still generally poor sequence conservation. Nonetheless, analysis with ML, NJ, and QP, also after exclusion of gapped positions (14 OTUs, 386 sites), provided good support for the monophyly of eukaryotic SQR (branch E in figure 4c) with all methods except MP (fig. 4c).
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
Based on spectroscopic and mutational analyses, Griesbeck et al. (2002) proposed a mechanism for the SQR that involved the participation of three cysteine residues, Cys 127, Cys 159, and Cys 353; however, they also noted that a catalytic mechanism involving only two cysteine residues instead of three would be compatible with the available data. We found that Cys 159 and Cys 353 are strictly conserved in SQR homologs investigated here, but we found no evidence for a conservation of Cys 127 outside of group I. Cysteine residues were lacking in several SQR sequences within 50 amino acids N-terminal of Cys 127 to Cys 159 (alignment available upon request) and also in the S. pombe SQR, the only sequence outside of group I that has been shown to be directly involved in sulfide oxidation.
Noting that Cys 127 is missing in S. pombe SQR, Griesbeck et al. (2002) pointed out that the Km values of roughly 2 mM each for sulfide and quinone measured for S. pombe SQR are 1000-fold higher than for the eubacterial enzymes. This low substrate affinity could, in principle, cast doubt on the functional identity of S. pombe SQR (HMT2, the product of the hmt2 gene) as a functional SQR enzyme. However, Vande Weghe and Ow (1999) showed (1) that isolated mitochondria from hmt2+ S. pombe cells could reduce exogenous quinones with sulfide, whereas hmt2- could not, (2) that hmt2+ S. pombe cells could oxidize endogenously produced sulfide, whereas hmt2- could not, (3) that HMT2 produced in E. coli is a flavoprotein, (4) that his-tagged HMT2 purified from E. coli reduces quinones in a sulfide-dependent manner in vitro, albeit with poor kinetic constants, and (5) that HMT2 resides in mitochondria. Thus, despite the high Km values measured for S. pombe HMT2 produced in E. coli (which lacks SQR), the brunt of evidence indicates that S. pombe HMT2 is an active mitochondrial SQR, but there remains the possibility that it requires an additional subunit or factor not required by group I SQR for full activity. This possibility and the lack of Cys 127 in several SQR sequences drew our attention to the ORF of unknown function translationally fused to the N-terminus of group I SQR from Nitrosomonas europaea, Burkholderia fungorum, and Ralstonia metallidurans. These possess a strictly conserved cysteine residue at position 40 of the Nitrosomonas sequence (fig. 2). Database searching revealed that this ORF is present in numerous eubacterial genomes and that Cys 40 is strictly conserved in all homologs, perhaps suggesting that it might be able to assume the function of Cys 127 in SQR from group II. However we could not identify this ORF in all genomes whose group II SQR lacks Cys 127, for example, Pasteurella multocida, leaving the question of whether two or three cysteine residues are involved in the SQR catalytic mechanism (Griesbeck et al. 2002) open from this standpoint.
SQR Sequence Diversity and Lateral Gene Transfer Among Prokaryotes
SQR homologs encompass three groups of sequence diversity that are nonuniformly distributed across eubacteria, archaebacteria, and eukaryotes (figs. 1 and 4a and b). Group I contains the functionally characterized eubacterial SQR enzymes from cyanobacteria and Rhodobacter capsulatus and furthermore contains only eubacterial homologs. Group III contains functionally uncharacterized SQR homologs detected in sequenced archaebacterial genomes in addition to eubacterial homologs from the sulfate reducer Desulfovibrio, from the anaerobic, photosynthetic, green sulfur bacterium Chlorobium, and from the -proteobacterium Magnetospirillum. SQR sequences in group II (fig. 4a and b) comprise eubacterial and eukaryotic homologs.
Lateral gene transfer (LGT) exists among prokaryotes and has become a major issue in gene and genome evolution (Gogarten, Doolittle, and Lawrence 2002). The present analysis suggests that also SQR genes may have transferred among prokaryotes during evolution, judging from the interleaving of eubacterial and archae distribution of -proteobacterial homologs (fig. 4a). However, when sequences possessing significant amino acid bias are removed from the data (fig. 4b), the degree of interleaving also decreases, suggesting that a phylogenetic argument for unrestricted LGT of SQR genes among prokaryotes cannot be made for these data. However, the presence of four robustly clustering cyanobacterial SQR genes in group I and the presence of a single cyanobacterial SQR in group II (Synechocystis) suggests that the Oscillatoria-type SQR (group I) might represent the endogenous cyanobacterial gene, whereas Synechocystis may have picked up its SQR from a proteobacterial donor (fig. 4c). The interleaving of ß-proteobacterial and
-proteobacterial homologs in figure 4c indicates further probable workings of LGT for SQR among prokaryotes.
A Single Origin of Eukaryotic SQR, a Eubacterial Relict from the Anoxic and Sulfidic Past
The present analyses provide evidence for a single eubacterial origin of eukaryotic SQR, indicating that eukaryotes sampled here acquired the gene for mitochondrial SQR once in evolution from a eubacterial donor (fig. 4c). The nature of that eubacterial donor is highly relevant to the issue of mitochondrial evolution and eukaryote origins. There are two simple possiblities: the donor of the SQR gene either was the ancestor of mitochondria or was not.
On the one hand, arguing meekly against the view that the SQR donor was the mitochondrial endosymbiont is a single finding, namely that eukaryotic SQR does not specifically branch with -proteobacterial SQR. Indeed, it has recently been argued that any eukaryotic nuclear gene that is to be inferred to be of mitochondrial origin must be shown to branch specifically with
-proteobacterial homologs (Kurland and Andersson 2000; Canback, Andersson, and Kurland 2002). However, that view is probably too simplistic for several reasons. First, SQR is not a highly conserved protein, such that the early evolution of this eukaryotic gene as viewed from the perspective of phylogenetics may have simply been obscured by mutation. Sequence conservation in SQR permits one to trace the origins of the eukaryotic gene to eubacteria, but tracing it to any particular eubacterial lineage on the basis of 30% sequence identity is probably asking too much of phylogenetic inference methods. Such loss of phylogenetic signal among poorly conserved genes has been well documented in genome-wide phylogenies involving genes acquired from chloroplasts (Martin et al. 2002). Second, the overall pattern of sequence similarity in figure 4a suggests that contemporary
-proteobacteria may themselves have acquired their SQR genes from different sources, as evidenced by the presence of
-proteobacterial SQR homologs in group I (Rhodobacter), group II (Rhodospirillum, very close to a
-proteobacterial homolog), and group III (Magnetospirillum, branching among archaebacterial homologs). It is reasonable to assume that
-proteobacteria were undergoing LGT, also for SQR genes, at the time of mitochondrial origins and subsequently. Incorporating LGT into evolutionary thinking thus makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly which genes the ancestor of mitochondria possessed and/or contributed to eukaryotes on the basis of today's sequence comparisons. In other words, allowing for the existence of LGT during prokaryotic evolution (Gogarten, Doolittle, and Lawrence 2002), no single contemporary
-proteobacterium can be expected to contain exactly the same set of orthologous genes as the ancestral mitochondrial endosymbiont did (Rotte et al. 2001). Third, the current sampling of eubacterial lineages is currently quite sparse; in time, eubacterial homologs that are more closely related to eukaryotic SQR might be found. Thus, the lack of an
-proteobacterial branch for this poorly conserved and laterally transferred gene (SQR) does not constitute clear evidence against its mitochondrial origin.
On the other hand, several findings argue in favor of the view that the eukaryotic SQR gene was acquired from the ancestor of mitochondria. First, eukaryotic SQR functions in the mitochondrial membrane the same way that -proteobacterial SQR functions in the eubacterial membrane, donating electrons from sulfide to quinones. Hence, a eubacterium with a diversified (facultatively) anaerobic electron transport chain would be the most likely SQR gene donor, for example one that could use fumarate as an electron acceptor. Eubacteria such as the
-proteobacterium Rhodospirillum rubrum, which possesses SQR, commonly use rhodoquinone (Okayama et al. 1968) alternatively to ubiquinone in their anaerobic electron transport chain, just like anaerobic mitochondria do today (Tielens et al. 2002). The inheritance by mitochondria of preexisting and functioning aerobic and anaerobic components in the same electron transport chain from a facultatively anaerobic ancestor of mitochondria that was perhaps similar in overall physiology to facultatively anaerobic
-proteobacteria, such as Rhodospirillum, Paracoccus denitrificans (John and Whatley 1975), or Rhodobacter, which possess SQR (Schütz et al. 1998; Griesbeck, Hauska, and Schütz 2000), seems much more likely than the piece-by-piece addition during eukaryotic evolution of anaerobic components (SQR, rhodoquinone, etc.) to an (hypothetical) ancestrally aerobic mitochondrial electron transport chain as envisaged by those who argue for an origin of mitochondria from strictly aerobic Rickettsia-like parasites (Kurland and Andersson 2000).
Second, the nuclear gene for SQR was apparently acquired once in eukaryotic evolution, not several times as would be predicted under models that envisage lateral gene acquisition from food bacteria as the major source of eubacterial, but apparently non-proteobacterial, genes in eukaryotes (Doolittle 1998). Such single acquisition with a phylogenetically unresolved eubacterial origin as seen for SQR is also observed for several other proteins involved in anaerobic ATP synthesis in eukaryotes, for example, [Fe]-hydrogenase (Horner, Foster, and Embley 2000; Horner et al. 2002), pyruvate:ferredoxin oxidoreductase (Horner, Hirt, and Embley 1999; Rotte et al. 2001; Embley et al. 2003), many glycolytic enzymes (Hannaert et al. 2000), and NADH oxidase (Nixon et al. 2002), not to mention many other eukaryotic proteins that are not involved directly in ATP synthesis, such as proteasome homologs HslV and HslU (Couvreur et al. 2002). Notably, [Fe]-hydrogenase and pyruvate:ferredoxin oxidoreductase possess several FeS clusters (Chabriere et al. 1999; Peters 1999), as do several proteins of the mitochondrial respiratory chain (Burger et al. 1996; Friedrich and Schiede 2000). Recent findings indicate that many proteins required for the assembly of FeS clusters are localized in mitochondria (Lill and Kispal 2000) and related organelles such as hydrogenosomes (Tachezy, Sanchez, and Müller 2001) and mitosomes (Katinka et al. 2001; Williams et al. 2002). The emerging monophyly of FeS cluster assembly in eukaryotes suggests that it was acquired en bloc from the ancestor of mitochondria (Huynen et al. 2001), as we suggest here for an SQR-containing mitochondrial respiratory chain.
Third, newer evidence suggests that during the period of Earth's history from 2 billion years ago to 1 billion years ago (2 to 1 Ga) SQR must have been very important, if not essential, for most, if not all, eukayrotes, at least the ones that inhabited the oceans. This is because the sulfur isotope record indicates that biological sulfate reduction, which produces sulfide, was highly active and globally widespread during that time (Canfield 1998; Shen, Buick, and Canfield 2001; Anbar and Knoll 2002). The consequence is that Earth's oceans subsurface water would have been both anoxic (without oxygen) and sulfidic (laden with sulfide) during that time. Anbar and Knoll (2002) discussed this anoxic, sulfidic marine environment in the context of low resulting copper and molybdenum concentrations, which they argued to have possibly impaired eukaryotic diversity, because these are important trace elements for eukaryotes. However, from the standpoint of our present findings, the more immediate problem posed by such environments for early eukaryotes would have been (1) ATP production without oxygen and (2) dealing with high concentrations of sulfide. Put another way, only osmotrophic eukaryotes such as fungi would have been limited by trace element availabilityphagocytosing eukaryotes would have been able to obtain their trace elements from ingested prey, but all subsurface eukaryotes during the period from 1 to 2 Ga would have been confronted with high sulfide concentrations. SQR is the mechanism that contemporary eukaryotes use to deal with high sulfide concentrations today, both in terms of detoxification and in terms of utilizing sulfide for mitochondrial ATP synthesis (Grieshaber and Völkel 1998). It is therefore reasonable to assume that ancient eukaryotes dealt with sulfide the same way as contemporary eukaryotes do, namely with mitochondrial SQR. Hence, the sulfidic and anoxic phase of Earth's history revealed by the sulfur isotope record does not lead to the prediction of limited eukaryotic diversity during the period from 1 to 2 Ga as suggested by Anbar and Knoll (2002), rather it leads to the prediction that eukaryotes diversified during anaerobic times and therefore that they should have preserved abundant traces of that anaerobic pastwhich they have, particularly in their mitochondria and hydrogenosomes (Martin and Müller 1998; Tielens et al. 2002; Embley et al. 2003) and also in the form of mitochondrial SQR.
Unicellular eukaryotes are at least 1.5 Ga old (Javaux, Knoll, and Walter 2001) and multicellular red algae are at least 1.2 Ga old (Butterfield 2000), meaning that differentiation of eukaryotic lineages below the plant lineage occurred in an anoxic and sulfidic world. Thus, eukaryotes that today inhabit anoxic and sulfidic marine environments did not necessarily have to become especially adapted to such conditions, nor did they need to acquire SQR genes by lateral transfer to do so. Rather, it seems that they "grew up" in an anoxic and sulfidic world and that mitochondrial SQR is simply a relic retained from that phase of eukaryotic history, whereby it still fulfills those same essential functions in modern eukaryotes from sulfidic habitats. Newer data indicate the fungal-animal divergence to be among the deepest branches in the eukaryotic tree (Stechmann and Cavalier-Smith 2002), such that the animal and fungal lineages sampled here cover much of the depth but not the breadth of eukaryotic diversity. In eukaryotes from aerobic and/or nonsulfidic habitats, such as S. pombe, the SQR gene and activity have nonetheless been retained (Vande Weghe and Ow 1999), perhaps for detoxification functions, and the SQR gene has apparently been lost in many lineages, among them Arabidopsis and Saccharomyces. No SQR homologs have yet been sequenced from those eukaryotes in which mitochondrial SQR has been most extensively characterized at the biochemical level: marine invertebrates (Grieshaber and Völkel 1998; Doeller, Grieshaber, and Kraus 2001) and chicken (Yong and Searcy 2001). However, work on the marine invertebrates is ongoing. Clearly, our prediction is that SQR from these eukaryotes will share the same origin as S. pombe SQR.
![]() |
Acknowledgements |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
Footnotes |
---|
![]() |
Literature Cited |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Adachi, J., and M. Hasegawa. 1996. Computer science monographs, No. 28. MOLPHY version 2.3: programs for molecular phylogenetics based on maximum likelihood. Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Tokyo.
Anbar, A. D., and A. H. Knoll. 2002. Proterozoic ocean chemistry and evolution: a bioinorganic bridge. Science 297:1137-1142.
Arieli, B., Y. Shahak, D. Taglicht, G. Hauska, and E. Padan. 1994. Purification and characerization of sulfide-quinone reductase, a novel enzyme driving anoxygenic photosynthesis in Oscillatoria limnetica. J. Biol. Chem. 269:5705-5711.
Bagarinao, T., and R. D. Vetter. 1990. Oxidative detoxification of sulfide by mitochondria of the California killifish Fundulus parvipinnis and the speckled sanddab Citharichthys stigmaeus. J. Comp. Physiol. 160B:519-527.[ISI]
Bastolla, U., M. Porto, H. E. Roman, and M. Vendruscolo. 2002. Lack of self-averaging in neutral evolution of proteins. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89: art. no. 208101.
Bateman, A., E. Birney, L. Cerruti, R. Durbin, L. Etwiller, S. R. Eddy, S. Griffiths-Jones, K. L. Howe, M. Marshall, and E. L. L. Sonnhammer. 2002. The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 30:276-280.
Baymann, F., E. Lebrun, M. Brugna, B. Schoepp, M.-T. Guidici-Oritconi, and W. Nitschke. 2003. The redox protein construction kit: pre-last universal common ancestor evolution of energy conserving enzymes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 358:267-274.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Bronstein, M., M. Schütz, G. Hauska, E. Padan, and Y. Shahak. 2000. Cyanobacterial sulfide-quinone reductase: cloning and heterologous expression. J. Bacteriol. 182:3336-3344.
Bryant, D., and V. Moulton. 2002. NeighborNet: an agglomerative method for the construction of planar phylogenetic networks. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop in Algorithms for Bioinformatics. (http://www.mcb.mcgill.ca/bryant/NeighborNet/).
Burger, G., B. F. Lang, M. Reith, and M. W. Gray. 1996. Genes encoding the same three subunits of respiratory complex II are present in the mitochondrial DNA of two phylogenetically distant eukaryotes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:2328-2332.
Butterfield, N. J. 2000. Bangiomorpha pubescens n. gen., n. sp.: implications for the evolution of sex, multicellularity, and the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic radiation of eukaryotes. Paleobiology 263:386-404.
Canback, B., S. G. Andersson, and C. G. Kurland. 2002. The global phylogeny of glycolytic enzymes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:6097-6102.
Canfield, D. E. 1998. A new model for Proterozoic ocean chemistry. Nature 396:450-453.[CrossRef][ISI]
Chabriere, E., M. H. Charon, A. Volbeda, L. Pieulle, E. C. Hatchikian, and J. C. Fontecilla-Camps. 1999. Crystal structures of the key anaerobic enzyme pyruvate:ferredoxin oxidoreductase, free and in complex with pyruvate. Nature Struct. Biol. 6:182-190.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Chen, Z. W., M. Koh, G. Van Driessche, J. J. Van Beeumen, R. G. Bartsch, T. E. Meyer, M. A. Cusanovich, and F. S. Mathews. 1994. The structure of flavocytochrome c sulfide dehydrogenase from a purple phototrophic bacterium. Science 266:430-432.[ISI][Medline]
Couvreur, B., R. Wattiez, A. Bollen, P. Falmagne, D. Le Ray, and J. C. Dujardin. 2002. Eubacterial hslV and hslU subunits homologs in primordial eukaryotes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:2110-2117.
Doeller, J. E., B. K. Gaschen, V. Parrino, and D. W. Kraus. 1999. Chemolithoheterotrophy in a metazoan tissue: sulfide supports cellular work in ciliated mussel gills. J. Exp. Biol. 202:1953-1961.
Doeller, J. E., M. K. Grieshaber, and D. W. Kraus. 2001. Chemolithoheterotrophy in a metazoan tissue: thiosulfate production matches ATP demand in ciliated mussel gills. J. Exp. Biol. 204:3755-3764.
Doolittle, W. F. 1998. You are what you eat: a gene transfer ratchet could account for bacterial genes in eukaryotic nuclear genomes. Trend. Genet. 14:307-311.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Embley, T. M., M. van der Giezen, D. S. Horner, P. L. Dyal, and P. Foster. 2003. Hydrogenosomes and mitochondria: phenotypic variants of the same fundamental organelle. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 358:191-203.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Felsenstein, J. 1998. PHYLIP (phylogeny inference package). Distributed by the author, Department of Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle.
Fenchel, T. M., and R. J. Riedl. 1970. The sulfide system: a new biotic community underneath the oxidized layer of marine sand bottoms. Mar. Biol. 7:255-268.[CrossRef][ISI]
Friedrich T, and D. Schiede. 2000. The respiratory complex I of bacteria, archaea, and eukarya and its module in common with membrane-bound multisubunit hydrogenases. FEBS Lett. 479:1-5.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Gogarten, P. J., W. F. Doolittle, and J. G. Lawrence. 2002. Prokaryotic evolution in light of lateral gene transfer. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:2226-2238.
Griesbeck, C., G. Hauska, and M. Schütz. 2000. Biological sulfide oxidation: sulfide-quinone reductase (SQR), the primary reaction. Pp. 179203 in S. G. Pandalai, ed. Recent research developments in microbiology, Vol 4. Research Signpost, Trivadrum, India.
Griesbeck, C., M. Schütz, T. Schödl, S. Bathe, L. Nausch, N. Mederer, M. Vielreicher, and G. Hauska. 2002. Mechanism of sulfide-quinone reductase investigated using site-directed mutagenesis and sulfur analysis. Biochemistry 41:11552-11565.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Grieshaber, M. K., and S. Völkel. 1998. Animal adaptations for tolerance and exploitation of poisonous sulfide. Ann. Rev. Physiol. 60:30-53.
Hannaert, V., H. Brinkmann, U. Nowitzki, J. A. Lee, M. A. Albert, C. W. Sensen, T. Gaasterland, M. Muller, P. Michels, and W. Martin. 2000. Enolase from Trypanosoma brucei, from the amitochondriate protist Mastigamoeba balamuthi, and from the chloroplast and cytosol of Euglena gracilis: pieces in the evolutionary puzzle of the eukaryotic glycolytic pathway. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:989-1000.
Horner, D. S., P. D. Foster, and T. M. Embley. 2000. Iron hydrogenase and the evolution of anaerobic eukaryotes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:1695-1709.
Horner, D. S., B. Heil, T. Happe, and T. M. Embley. 2002. Iron hydrogenasesancient enzymes in modern eukaryotes. Trends Biochem. Sci. 27:148-153.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Horner, D. S., R. P. Hirt, and T. M. Embley. 1999. A single eubacterial origin of eukaryotic pyruvate: ferredoxin oxidoreductase genes: implications for the evolution of anaerobic eukaryotes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:1280-1291.[Abstract]
Javaux, E. J., A. H. Knoll, and M. R. Walter. 2001. Morphological and ecological complexity in early eukaryotic ecosystems. Nature 412:66-69.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
John, P., and F. R. Whatley. 1975. Paracoccus denitrificans and the evolutionary origin of the mitochondrion. Nature 254:495-498.[ISI][Medline]
Johns, A. R., A. C. Taylor, R. J. A. Atkinson, and M. K. Grieshaber. 1997. Sulphide metabolism in thalassinidean crustacea. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. UK 77:127-144.
Huynen M. A., B. Snel, P. Bork, and T. J. Gibson. 2001. The phylogenetic distribution of frataxin indicates a role in iron-sulfur cluster protein assembly. Hum. Mol. Genet. 10:2463-2468.
Katinka, M.D., S. Duprat, and E. Cornillot, et al. (17 co-authors). 2001. The genome of the intracellular parasite, Encephalithozoon cuniculi. Nature 414:450-453.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Kurland, C. G., and S. G. Andersson. 2000. Origin and evolution of the mitochondrial proteome. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 64:786-820.
Lecompte, O., R. Ripp, J. C. Thierry, D. Moras, and O. Poch. 2002. Comparative analysis of ribosomal proteins in complete genomes: an example of reductive evolution at the domain scale. Nucleic Acids Res. 30:5382-5390.
Lill, R., and G. Kispal. 2000. Maturation of cellular Fe-S proteins: an essential function of mitochondria. Trend. Biochem. Sci. 25:352-356.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Martin, W., M. Hoffmeister, C. Rotte, and K. Henze. 2001. An overview of endosymbiotic models for the origins of eukaryotes, their ATP-producing organelles (mitochondria and hydrogenosomes), and their heterotrophic lifestyle. Biol. Chem. 382:1521-1539.[ISI][Medline]
Martin, W., and M. Müller. 1998. The hydrogen hypothesis for the first eukaryote. Nature 392:37-41.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Martin, W., T. Rujan, E. Richly, A. Hansen, S. Cornelsen, T. Lins, D. Leister, B. Stoebe, M. Hasegawa, and D. Penny. 2002. Evolutionary analysis of Arabidopsis, cyanobacterial, and chloroplast genomes reveals plastid phylogeny and thousands of cyanobacterial genes in the nucleus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:12246-12251.
National Research Council. 1979. Hydrogen sulfide. University Park Press, Baltimore.
Nei, M. 1996. Phylogenetic analysis in molecular evolutionary genetics. Ann. Rev. Genet. 30:371-403.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Nei, M., and S. Kumar. 2000. Molecular evolution and phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, New York.
Nixon, J. E. J., A. Wang, J. Field, H. G. Morrison, A. G. McArthur, M. L. Sogin, B. J. Loftus, and J. Samuelson. 2002. Evidence for lateral transfer of genes encoding ferredoxins, nitroreductases, NADH oxidase, and alcohol dehydrogenase 3 from anaerobic prokaryotes to Giardia lamblia and Entamoeba histolytica. Euk. Cell 1:181-190.[CrossRef][ISI]
Nübel, T., C. Klughammer, R. Huber, G. Hauska, and M. Schütz. 2000. Sulfide:quinone oxidoreductase in membranes of the hyperthermophilic bacterium Aquifex aeolicus (VF5) Arch. Microbiol. 173:233-244.
O'Brien, J., and R. D. Vetter. 1990. Production of thiosulfate during sulphide oxidation by mitochondria of the symbiont-containing bivalve Solemya reidi. J. Exp. Biol. 149:133-148.[Abstract]
Oeschger, R., and B. Vismann. 1994. Sulphide tolerance in Heteromastus filiformis (Polychaeta): mitochondrial adaptations. Ophelia 40:147-158.[ISI]
Okayama, S., N. Yamamoto, K. Nishikawa, and T. Horio. 1968. Roles of ubiquinone-10 and rhodoquinone in photosynthetic formation of adenosine triphosphate by chromatophores from Rhodospirillum rubrum. J. Biol. Chem. 243:2995-2999.
Parrino, V., D. W. Kraus, and J. E. Doeller. 2000. ATP Production from the oxidation of sulfide in gill mitochondria of the ribbed mussel Geukensia demissa. J. Exp. Biol. 202:2209-2218.
Peters, J. W. 1999. Structure and mechanism of iron-only hydrogenases. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 9:670-676.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Reeve, J. 2003. Archaeal chromatin and transcription. Mol. Microbiol. 48:587-598.[ISI][Medline]
Reinartz, M., T. Tschäpe, T. Brüser, H. G. Trüper, and C. Dahl. 1998. Sulfide oxidation in the phototrophic bacterium Chromatium vinosum. Arch. Microbiol. 170:59-68.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Rost, B. 1997. Protein structures sustain evolutionary drift. Fold. Des. 2:S19-S24.[ISI][Medline]
Rotte, C., F. Stejskal, G. Zhu, J. S. Keithly, and W. Martin. 2001. Pyruvate:NADP+ oxidoreductase from the mitochondrion of Euglena gracilis and from the apicomplexan Cryptosporidium parvum: a fusion of pyruvate:ferredoxin oxidoreductase and NADPH-cytochrome P450 reductase. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:710-720.
Saitou, N., and M. Nei. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4:406-425.[Abstract]
Schütz, M., M. Brugna, and E. Lebrun, et al. (12 co-authors). 2000. Early evolution of cytochrome bc complexes. J. Mol. Biol. 300:663-675.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Schütz, M., C. Klughammer, C. Griesbeck, A. Quentmeier, C. G. Friedrich, and G. Hauska. 1998. Sulfide-quinone reductase activity in membranes of the chemotrophic bacterium Paracoccus denitrificans GB17. Arch. Microbiol. 170:353-360.[CrossRef][ISI]
Schütz, M., Y. Shahak, E. Padan, and G. Hauska. 1997. Sulfide-quinone reductase from Rhodobacter capsulatus. J. Biol. Chem. 272:9890-9894.
Shahak, Y., B. Arieli, E. Padan, and G. Hauska. 1992. Sulfide quinone reductase (SQR) activity in Chlorobium. FEBS Lett. 299:127-130.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Shahak, Y., C. Klughammer, U. Schreiber, E. Padan, I. Herrmann, and G. Hauska. 1994. Sulfide-quinone and sulfide-cytochrome reduction in Rhodobacter capsulatus. Photosynthesis Res. 39:175-181.[CrossRef][ISI]
Shen, Y., R. Buick, and D. E. Canfield. 2001. Isotopic evidence for microbial sulphate reduction in the early Archaean era. Nature 410:77-81.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Stechmann, A., and T. Cavalier-Smith. 2002. Rooting the eukaryote tree by using a derived gene fusion. Science 297:89-91.
Strimmer, K., and A. von Haeseler. 1996. Quartet puzzling: a quartet maximum-likelihood method for reconstructing tree topologies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:964-969.
Tachezy, J., L. B. Sanchez, and M. Müller. 2001. Mitochondrial type iron-sulfur cluster assembly in the amitochondriate eukaryotes Trichomonas vaginalis and Giardia intestinalis, as indicated by the phylogeny of IscS. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:1919-1928.
Thompson, J. D., D. G. Higgins, and T. J. Gibson. 1994. ClustalW: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 22:4673-4680.[Abstract]
Tielens, A. G. M., C. Rotte, J. van Hellemond, and W. Martin. 2002. Mitochondria as we don't know them. Trends Biochem. Sci. 27:564-572.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Tye, B. K. 2000. Insights into DNA replication from the third domain of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:2399-2401.
Vande Weghe, J. G., and D. W. Ow. 1999. A fission yeast gene for mitochondrial sulfide oxidation. J. Biol. Chem. 274:13250-13257.
Völkel, S., and M. K. Grieshaber. 1992. Mechanisms of sulphide tolerance in the peanut worm, Sipunculus nudus (Sipunculidae) and in the lugworm, Arenicola marina (Polychaeta). J. Comp. Physiol. B Biochem. Syst. Environ. Physiol. 162:469-477.[ISI]
Völkel, S., and M. K. Grieshaber. 1996a. Mitochondrial sulfide oxidation in Arenicola marina: evidence for alternative electron pathways. Eur. J. Biochem. 235:231-237.[Abstract]
Völkel, S., and M. K. Grieshaber. 1996b. Sulphide oxidation and oxidative phosphorylation in the mitochondria of the lugworm Arenicola marina. J. Exp. Biol. 200:83-92.[ISI]
Völkel, S., K. Hauschild, and M. K. Grieshaber. 1995. Sulfide stress and tolerance in the lugworm Arenicola marina during low tide. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 122:205-215.[ISI]
Williams, B.A., R. P. Hirt, J. M. Lucocq, and T. M. Embley. 2002. A mitochondrial remnant in the microsporidian Trachipleistophora hominis. Nature 418:865-869.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Yong, R., and D. G. Searcy. 2001. Sulfide oxidation coupled to ATP synthesis in chicken liver mitochondria. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. B 129:129-137.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]