3 ms·
Archaea are interesting and often overlooked because they aren't numerous relative to bacteria. The domain Archaea always struck me as more of a "junk drawer"
by mighty_bander 7y ago
Archaea are interesting and often overlooked because they aren't numerous relative to bacteria. The domain Archaea always struck me as more of a "junk drawer" than a genuine grouping.
- vikramkr 7y agoWe are also likely to be a descendant of them, which makes them even more interesting IMO. We seem lot more similar to bacteria on the surface which makes it strange that we might be more closely related to archaea. And let's not forget that we are part bacteria as well - and I dont mean the microbiome. Our mitochondria are fascinating. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2014/origins-of-eukaryotes-who-are-our-closest-relatives/ http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2014/origins-of-eukaryotes...
- mighty_bander 7y agoFunny story - I read an article linked from the one in the original post, and then replied about that, having forgotten where I started. You might find it interesting. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21031 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21031
- madhadron 7y ago> Archaea always struck me as more of a "junk drawer" than a genuine grouping. Why do you say that? They emerged from the large scale structure of 16S rRNA trees, which is what defined them as separate from bacteria.
- stochastic_monk 7y agoYou’re correct, the above poster is more enthusiastic than accurate. I knew Carl Woese, who discovered Archaea through this analysis, during my time at UIUC.