Jump to content

Talk:Archaea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Betaben (talk | contribs) at 05:54, 11 March 2008 (→Date for the accepted three domain system). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WP1.0

Opening paragraph

I hacked up the opening paragraph because I felt it didn't adequately summarize what archaea are. The original just discussed the taxonomic difficulties of the three domain system. I tried to insert some descriptive stuff (single celled, no nucleus, ...) I'm still not entirely happy with how it fits together, though. I'm trying to balance a succinct description with acknowledgement of the uncertainty. The intro is not the place to go into the details, but it should touch on the basics. Help me out, please. Jmeppley 23:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Tree of Life Picture

Please, replace terms like Plants and Animals in the Tree of Life picture with proper latin words. I didn't do this because I do not consider myself competent in the subject, but I am sure latin words are required here.

"Latin words"? I personally don't see the difference between having "Animals" and "Animalia", etc... Although I must agree that "tree of life" should be changed into "phylogenic tree".

The form used in Wikipedia seems to be "phylogenetic tree." I will add a redirect. DGG 04:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it spelled "Eukaryota"? Why is there a "c" instead of a "k" in the domain name? Werothegreat 15:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--

There are some mistakes in the Tree of Life given here. The microsporidia have been known for a number of years to be a highly evolved branch of the fungi. The basal position of some of the other eukaryotic organisms is also being debated. As far as I know the archeal and bacterial trees are currently considered to be correct.

It is not certain that prokaryotic tree is correct. There is strong evidence that basalmost branches are artefacts (long-branch attraction). For example the position of Aquifex may by such an artefact. It is possible this bacterium is closely related to proteobacteria. See e.g. http://www.bacterialphylogeny.com/ . And if Aquifex is wrong, the rest of the tree may be wrong, too (exactly as it was with microsporidia). A casual visitor, 84.10.114.122 18:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous biologists section necessary?

I doubt the famous biologists section is necessary. The individual contributions can be adequately highlighted in the remaining text. Furthermore, Woese and Stetter are already extensively linked in the rest of the article.

Agreed, and Woese is cited many many times in all the possibly relevant articles. DGG 04:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References to transcription and translation.

We can not and should not assume that Archaeal transcription and translation are extremely similar to the eukaryotic counterparts. I've changed the wording a bit to reflect this although the thrust seems to be on eukaryotic similarities. One day, when I get some time, I'll change this to reflect the similiarities with prokaryotic systems as both should be mentioned. Here is a reference for all interested.

Geiduschek EP, Ouhammouch M. Archaeal transcription and its regulators. Mol Microbiol. 2005 Jun;56(6):1397-407. (Review)

Abstract: "The relatively complex archaeal RNA polymerases are constructed along eukaryotic lines, and require two initiation factors for promoter recognition and specific transcription that are homologues of the RNA polymerase II TATA-binding protein and TFIIB. Many archaea also produce histones. In contrast, the transcriptional regulators encoded by archaeal genomes are primarily of bacterial rather than eukaryotic type. It is this combination of elements commonly regarded as separate and mutually exclusive that promises unifying insights into basic transcription mechanisms across all three domains of life."

and slightly dated but essentially valid:

Bell SD, Jackson SP. Transcription and translation in Archaea: a mosaic of eukaryal and bacterial features. Trends Microbiol. 1998 Jun;6(6):222-8. (Review).

Also I've changed the text to reflect that tRNA introns are present in some tRNA genes, and by no means all or even in all species.

In the absence of any pathogenic Archaea aruging that they are stripped down versions of eukaryotic systems is useful in getting NIH money, but there are some remarkable similiarities with bacterial counterparts as well. --Antorjal 15:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counts

Do w need an organized way of keeping counts of, e.g, species sequences up to date. I updated and added the date as a hint to check regularlyDGG 04:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cell Picture

Both Bacteria and Eukaryota have a picutre describing the general cell structure of their domain. If anyone could get a picture of archaean cell structure, that would be awesome.Werothegreat 15:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

The opening paragraph says that archaea are eukaryotic, yet the eukaryote article says that archaea are not. Is it meant to say prokaryotic? Or am I missing something? --Awesome 01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archaea: new phylum

New phylum of virus-sized archea discovered in a mine. [1] Brian Pearson 00:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archaea

Are archaea aoutrophic or heterotrophic? Is locomotion present or absent? --72.91.155.248 03:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)SampleUser[reply]

Outline

It might be good to have the same sections in the Archaea article as the bacteria article.

  1. History of the study of archaea
  2. Origin and early evolution
  3. Morphology
  4. Cellular structure - Intracellular structures and Extracellular structures
  5. Metabolism
  6. Growth and reproduction
  7. Genetics
  8. Movement
  9. Classification and identification
  10. Interactions with other organisms - Mutualists and Pathogens
  11. Significance in technology and industry
  12. See also
  13. References
  14. Further reading
  15. External links

TimVickers 02:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogenetic tree

The new image developed for Evolution could be considered as a replacement here. Verisimilus T 09:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

The origin of Archaea section needs some work to bring it up to the current consensus. It should cover aspects of the controversy and explain why we think we know what we do. Verisimilus T 09:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox colours

Hello,

After much discussion, it has been agreed that colour changes for taxoboxes are necessary; it's currently proposed that amoebozoa taxoboxes should become #FFC8A0 and rhizaria, lavender. These changes would be carried out automatically, determined by regnum/phylum/etc entries in the taxobox. Your comments and opinions would be gratefully received here!

Thanks,

Verisimilus T 20:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date for the accepted three domain system

is given as 1990 by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-domain_system but here, it says 1977. I guess the references check out, but why is one quoted as 13 years later? Is this the date that the system was finally accepted? Betaben (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Archaea&oldid=197418686"