I keep on referring to "The Paper", it's the bio essays paper located in the video description! The next PhyBit will tackle the other bits about archaea that I couldn't mention here, as well as a closer look at those dental archaea!
There are almost all the same types of metabolism among archaea, as among the bacteria. Not to mention that Eukarya are a subset of archaea phylogenetically
Their is one disease associated with Archaea called IMO (Intestinal Methanogan Overgrowth), it is related to SIBO (Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth). It is when an overgrowth of Archaea in the intestines produce too much Methane causing constipation and whole load of symptoms. They do not cause the disease itself, more like a symptom. It is usually when the muscle and nerves of someone’s small intestines stop functioning optimally that bacteria, fungi and archaea begin to colonize the small intestines. I am familiar with IMO because I am part of the SIBO/IBS community and it has been a struggle
I imagine it has more to do with the lifestyles of each domain. r versus K-selection. Bacteria are more prone to being in r-selective(easy but chaotic) environments, where as Archaea are in very K-selective(harsh but stable) environments. Archaea do not benefit from being pathogenic because pathogens proliferate in easy environments and can cause absolute devastation to K-selective ones. Imagine if Archaea were to try and be selfish and destructive in their very fine-tuned and harsh environments, they'd quickly upset the balance and upset the factors they thrive in(lots of dead microbes could lead to pH changes, vital nutrients getting depleted -- abundant new food sources could allow for more rapidly reproducing microbes to take advantage and cause even more issues). On the other hand, bacteria bloom and spread and flourish in environments like rotting fruit and dung. Throw in the different metabolisms between Archaea and the other two domains and it becomes like an insurmountable wall. If they did become more pathogenic they'd almost certainly be outcompeted by bacteria and Eukaryotes that already have a better lifestyle to capitalize on it and better pathways to utilize what is there. If there are pathogenic archaea then I imagine they'd affect hosts on the peripheries on their extremophile ecosystems. Maybe fungi or specific plants that grow around geysers or extremely briny pools?
@@phylumchannel It should(since commensal relationships work out really well in K-selective environments from what I know), but commensal organisms can evolve into parasitic lifestyles and vice versa. Some examples would be parasitic plants that parasitize mycorrhizal fungi where as their closest relatives are symbiotic partners with those fungi. You also have the relationship with what are believed to be the closest living relatives of mitochondria, Rickettsiales, which are endoparasitic bacteria. The Chrompodellids are also endosymbionts with some animals(like corals) and their closest living relatives seem to be the Apicomplexans to whom the organisms that cause Malaria and Toxoplasmosis belong to. Commensal archaea are probably the best bet for any pathogenic archaea if I had to guess.
Even if so... Then again - archaea is a whole domain of life. It's biomass is approximately the same as one of fungi. And yet we have parasitic fungi, we have multicellular and complex mushrooms, we have extremophilic fungi, fungi that are very sensitive to the environment and fungi that may survive almost anything. Why then archaea is so specialized and conservative?
My guess is that archaea tend to live in extreme environments far from human habitation, so they haven't been able to interact long enough to find evolutionary niches to exploit, for the most part. Also living in an extreme environment means they don't have much competition, so perhaps they never needed to evolve to produce antimicrobial compounds and other toxins
@@WilliamLund-o1d Strange! Then I have no clue. It almost seems like deliberate engineering - like if life on earth was an experiment and you wanted to keep it within some safe bounds, you'd make something like archea.
I think it’s mainly their environment like you, as the low amount of organisms and the abundance of their sustenance in the form of chemicals in extreme environments. They simply don’t need to predate or compete because they’ve found their perfect niche.
@@WilliamLund-o1d I'd guess that the populations that live in us are more differentiated from the ones which live in soil than are their bacterial and fungal equivalents, and that those which live in the highest concentrations are so different from the other two as to basically be like cnidarians and us and requiring especially picky parasites. Combine that with low niche competition within the Archaea and that's basically the exact opposite of what pathogenic development is suited to (lots of viable host species with dense populations and lots of competition for resource rich niches). Put simply, they're such a large and weird clade that our microbiome is probably kinda like an island habitat and so is basically populated by the Archaean equivalents of marsupials, afrotherians, and the paleognaths, you know the real oddballs that required phylogenetic analysis to understand the relatedness of and which tend to be significantly less prone to having (as many) transmissible diseases simply because their closest living relatives tend to be on entirely different continents...
What fascinates me endlessly, is the fact that it would be more accurate to say that archaea are /our/ weird cousins, moreso than the bacteria's - as a matter of fact, the discovery and sequencing of the Lokiarchaeota, and subsequently the rest of the Asgard clade of archaea, has demonstrated pretty decisively that the eukaryotes arose from within an archaean lineage, and therefore, by modern taxonomic convention, we ARE archaea! Granted, one can still potentially validly think of the eukaryotes as being a distinct sort of composite organism, combining an archaean autosomal base with the endosymbiosis of 1-2 bacterial lineages (the ancestors of mitochondria and chloroplasts), and possibly even a fucking DNA retrovirus (possible origin of the eukaryotic nucleus), and therefore to place the eukaryotes within archaea would be fatally reductive. But it still always blows my mind to think that this obscure, understudied, often forgotten domain of life, that so often feels ecologically disconnected from us is actually where all complex life has its main taproot.
What makes this even more confusing is that evolutionary scientists are now theorizing that Eukaryotes evolved from Archaea (Asgardian variant), which swallowed up a bacteria (Proto-Mitochondria). If Eukaryotes truly evolve from Archaea, then why is their metabolism evolved to function more like a Bacteria than an Archaea ?
I'd figure it's for a better level of compatibility with their endosymbiont bacteria(mitochondria). The mitochondria do after all act as their means of producing ATP which has to be done at the cell membrane(as far as I know at least) and thus kind of like their stomach. Mitochondria also sometimes transfer genes to their hosts, which would be a direct reason for that similarity as they've literally inherited bacterial genes. A neat thing is that some Eukaryotes who don't have mitochondria anymore were able to be identified as almost certainly having them in the past because of remnant genes relating to them and their function, like Pelomyxa.
@@Intelligenthumour That is the most probable explanation. And doubly true for plants who had to adapt to the needs of their Chloroplasts, originally most likely a photosynthetic cyanobacterium that was engulfed by an early eukaryotic cell (along with the mitochondria). And plants are the basis of the food chain in the majority of ecosystems.
Its theorized that the first eukaryote may have already evolved a proto nucleus by then, as otherwise its genetic material would almost certainly be damaged by the bacteria multiplying inside it
@@4124V4TA-SNPCA-x Well, we have a whole range of eukaryotes who get rid of their chloroplasts. Even some who get rid of their mitochondria. Or ones who stole chloroplasts from other eukaryotes. Or ones who stole entire eukaryotes with chloroplasts. And some, who have chloroplasts and yet still remain predatory. A whole range of biodiversity.
@@thesenate1844 it's not certain. There's a whole range of theories about nucleus. Like, for instance double symbiosis, suggesting that nucleus is yet another symbiont or maybe a parasite that completely evicted or incorporated it's host's DNA.
AFAIK even though the human microbiome has Archaean members, the diversity of Archaeans in said microbiome is very low. Nearly all of them are from one group of relatively closely related Methanogens. Moreover, that also seems to be mostly true for other mammals as well. Basically we only ever interact with one type of Archaea on a regular basis, whereas we interact with far more bacteria. That alone could account for this apparent bias. It would therefore be more accurate to say that the apparently docile nature of Archaea is both the result of their tenancy towards extreme environments (at the exclusion of non-extreme environments), combined with dumb luck.
Maybe Candida Albicans. and the other non-albican species that are potentially pathogenic, Tropicalis, Gabrata, Krusei, you can even compare to the major antibiotic resistance to the major antifungal resistant Candida Auris. also Aspergillus as well could be fun.
I love how Archea are so different, and yet we can't really be clear about *why* they're different. It's just so surreal that a whole domain remains so totally clouded.
It's kinda funny how I ran into this topic, I am an undergraduate student in pharmacy and was introduced to the idea of the kingdoms of biology in a lecture on evolutionary biology and systematics, then afterwards in my free time I started to read on the kingdom Archaea, that was the best rabbit hole ever I swear. Your video helps and I wish I found it before studying the topic 😅 cheers!
You start the video with pointing out how often forgotten and how under researched are the domain Archaea. And it is true to such a degree that i have watched the video with automatic subtitles and the AI never managed to write it down properly. Most frequent transcription were ARA and Ara, but it was also other things like arch, archa, arcane, etc. If in the future this video is lost but somehow this automatic transliteration survives archaeologist would think you made a video about the old, arcane studies of the ARAs. Maybe you are a witch, but at least an alchemist ;) . This domain may be also paraphxletic with lots of unknown stuff thrown together. Just like pure slime molds, several groups of fungi and even many plant and animal clades. I would like to watch a video about archaea taxonomy by you.
Can you make a video on Parakaryon myojinensis (the strange organism that appears to be neither prokaryote not eukaryote, but for some reason nobody has never mentioned whether it's DNA has ever been sequenced)? Also what are your thoughts on Kwang Jeon's experiment? For some reason this comment keeps deleting itself
@@ooooneeee if I was the leader of the expedition that found the thing I'd be organising more, you'd have made the biggest biological discovery since evolution
You touched on it briefly when you mentioned that Archaea have different nutritional requirements. One thing to remember is that the way a lot of bacterial and fungal infections are identified is through culturing patient samples and identifying the predominant growth, mainly through the use of agar plates. These plates tend to be specialized towards a small subsection of the human microbiome and even some known pathogens won't grow without additional nutritional supplementation. It's possible that Archaean infections do occur, but may fail to appear by conventional identification methods. Coupled with the lack of research makes even identifying an Archaean infection significantly more difficult. Another factor could even involve masking by bacterial growth which could be attributed as the cause of infection instead of Archaea. For obvious ethical reasons, it's not like research teams can purposely attempt to infect people with Archaea to see if they cause infection. In the end the reason we're not finding Archaean pathogens is possibly because we're not looking for them.
I'm not sure if it's intentional, but at 4:30, when the graph was shown, the audio cut off for a few seconds. Again, not sure if this was intentional or just a small mistake but I thought I should mention it.
It was intentional - I finished scripting everything and felt like I couldn't publish the video without explaining the nuance for people who cared, but at the same time going through that explanation would have messed with the tempo of the story.
This video is great! I knew next to nothing about archaea before clicking on it, and now I'm scratching my head. Thanks for putting in the work to make it so accessible! 💕
Watched a couple videos and I was thinking this guy has to have atleast a million subs. Not a chance you should that few. Keep it up. You’ll blow up in no time
I think it's because most species of Archaea evolved in very extreme and isolated environments. They simply had no pressure to develop complex structures and defenses for competition. They just had to evolve to take better advantage of their environment. Other bacteria faced significantly more competition.
I just discovered your channel. Your videos are nice. Although your subscriber count is low, you'll surely get decent views once you start getting loyal viewers. I hope you continue making videos in this format.😊
I believe that archaea does not harm you because it does not need too. What I mean is that since archaea had evolved in different scenarios they were able to use resources that other cells don't so there is no competing therefore meaning that attacking mechanisms were never needed. As well, since they developed in different environments they may just already have protection from predators due to there protection from there environment.
8:35 is that because their genetics are completely different ?, a bacteriophage would've a hard time doing anything with an archaeal transcription machinery even if their genetic material got into the cell, considering they're more similar to eukaryotes than bacteria in those regards. But then archaean phages exist too as mentioned in the video, a cursory search seems to say that the archaeal viruses we've studied are very different from bacteriophages.
I both love and hate you for this video it seems like there’s a 100% chance of there being such a pathogen and it’s really frustrating that there simply isn’t but it’s so god damn interesting
Latest science: there are really only two domains of life: 1. Bacteria, 2. Archaea. We're specifically Archaea of the Heimdallarcheota type. It just so happens that we kidnapped some bacterium related to typhus fevers to fend ourselves against oxygen, and as a side effect boast our energy levels.
Typhus? Don't you mean rickets? (Mitochondria are more closely related to Rickettsia, the bacteria that are responsible for rickets) Also, just pointing out that you wrote "boast" instead of "boost".
One very speculative thing that comes to my mind is that as I understand it (with my very limited understanding, that might be totally incorrect) is that many archaea are slow growing and long lived. If this is the case it may simply be that most diseases caused by archaea are slow developing diseases where it is much more difficult to link cause and effect for the disease.
Could simply be that the difference between the preferred environments of Archaea is so extreme that our microbiomes are basically island populations, which are notorious for weird quirks like not having predator response, having all manner of convergent and divergent evolutions like a bird that acts like a shrew and hunts almost exclusively with its NOSTRILS (which birds typically have little interest in using for anything more than breathing), and elephants that look like marmots (I see nothing in the paenungulata that I wouldn't mind calling an "Elephant" if it allows me to call Hyraxes "Marmot Elephants")
I know that this might sound evil scientist-esc, but what if we try engineering an arachea pathogen? Not to create some super disease, but to see if organisms like lab mice, have any effective immune response. It might give some insight into whether there have been arachea pathogens in the past. Also it would be really cool.
When eukaryotes first evolved from the endosymbiotic merger between an archaeon and a bacteria, it appears that, at least for the eukaryotic lineage that survived the transition to become the common ancestor of today's eukaryotes, the eukaryotes ended up with most of their information processing genes coming from the archaeon partner, and most of their metabolic genes coming from their bacterial endosymbiont. This is one of the reasons why we humans find archaeon metabolism so "weird". Eukaryotes and bacteria basically share a common ancestry for most of their metabolism and so there are lots of point of commonality between eukaryotes and at least certain types of bacteria in terms of their basic metabolism. But archaea have been doing their own unique things metabolically which eukaryotes did not inherit from them. Since pathogenicity requires a lot of metabolic exploitation, this could be the reason why archaea haven't become pathogens of humans or other eukaryotes. One side question to consider is, are there any archaea that are pathogenic to other archaea, or bacteria?
Perhaps the lack of cytotoxic machinery in Archaea (which evolved to give bacteria a fighting chance against other bacteria) is exactly why no virus has evolved to give archaea pathogenic abilities. Archaea simply aren’t geared towards producing toxic chemicals necessary to promote infection.
Correlation, not causation. According to the NIH "The presence of methanogenic Archaea has been correlated with various human disease states, such as gum disease, gastrointestinal ailments, and colon cancer 10-15, but no causative relationships have been established." For the audience.
I'm pretty new to the channel. Interesting video but I don't have a biology background would've helped me if you took some time to explain what Archaea are!
I've seen some hypothesis that it has to do with the membrane, I don't remember exactly the details; the bacterial/eukaryotic form of the lipid bilayer is best suited to some form(s) of energy production that happens to be conducive to parasitic or competitive lifestyles. Something like that.
From an evolutionary standpoint, the absence of pathogenic archaea might be because the niche of viruses turning prokaryotes into pathogens is already dominated by phages affecting bacteria?
But if we can isolate and multiply archea and their viruses, we could introduce virulence factors to the archea phages/viruses and disprove (or prove) the hypothesis. Right? Is it actually that hard to do?
How about bacteria: salmonella typhi, lactobacillus and bifidobacterium, campylobacter, staphylococcus aureus, streptococcus Pyogenes vibrio cholera and vibrio Vulnificus helicobacter pylori fungi: candida, rhizopus, apserilligus Protozoa: toxoplasma, plasmodium here are some video options
If bacteria and archea are so similar, wouldn't it be better to split life into 2 domains: eucarya and procarya, and then bacteria and archea can be the 2 kingdoms. Looks nicer to me
3 месяца назад
It existed, 100 years ago, before philogenetics and the discovery of archaea. Modern biology prefers taxa that are defined as "X and all its descendants", and since eucarya evolved from procarya, in this system, they're not sibling branches. And fun fact, bacteria and archaea might have similar shape, but they're actually two most distantly related groups of living creatures on earth, and their biochemistry is quite different.
3 месяца назад
The three-domain system might be replaced with two-domain system in the future, with domains bacteria and archaea. That is because there's now quite plenty of evidence that the ancestor of eucarya is archaea, which makes eucarya a part of the archaea domain if we define it as "common ancestor and all of its descendants".
It might be that some archaea would cause disease, but something fundamental about them makes them easy immune system tagets, which makes it difficult for them to evolve new weapons as a pathogen, since they are so bad at being pathogens, there are no pathogenic archaea to get pressure to be better pathogens?
I might have a lot of archaea cuz I never complain about the heat even if I am wearing a black jacket in a country that can reach over 43° C (over 100° F)
bacteria: i love my hooman body phages: now u will destroy it with ur friends! bacteria: so why is that dumb iduwuot is not atacking our body? archea: idk why im even here but i liked this hot nose :3
I think that it wouldn't be realistic for an archaea to evolve to be pathogenic, since their main survival strat is to go were no competition is (i.e hottest places on earth) Because of that, there aren't really any hosts for them to become pathogenic to
I have no knowledge about the topic. But what if archaea is very good at self destructing when encountering foreign dna/rna entering them. Thus limiting viruses that would have been able to enter, from ever really be able to adapt and multiply.
But it makes no sense for single celled organisms to self destruct. Self destruct is useful in multicelled organisms because it protects other cells. I am not a expert but I don't know if single celled organisms self destructs. Cool theory nonetheless.
@@phylumchannel This whole archaea thing is so confusing. Yeah it could be to protect relatives but this feature not being in bacteria(atleast not as much as archaea even tho bacteria had more time to adapt self destruct and had more evolution pressure to do it since they live in environments filled with viruses) adds a whole layer of blind luck.
2:31 Actually, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, it just isn't conclusive evidence and it's also circumstantial. Still evidence though. Still counts.
I keep on referring to "The Paper", it's the bio essays paper located in the video description! The next PhyBit will tackle the other bits about archaea that I couldn't mention here, as well as a closer look at those dental archaea!
Do Ebola
Consider pinning your comment, this is kinda important
EDIT: sounded way too rude, fixed now
@@izzy-wt9sr I thought I did! Thanks for pointing that out!
You are really underrated continue the good work
its a real life meat boy
Archea are probably the coolest microorganisms that exist. Bros are just chilling, vibing, eating the chemical soups
There are almost all the same types of metabolism among archaea, as among the bacteria. Not to mention that Eukarya are a subset of archaea phylogenetically
Until they do endosymbiosis and start to burn fossil fuels a couple million years later
Fun fact: we are archeans too!
and you are chilling, vibing, and eating ram
Every type of cell: Fighting in constant warfare
Archaea: OwO is that a 1000C pool of water with a salt concentration of 192%?
Mmm mmm volcano soup
@@Xenon_Protogood soup
My mom makes soup with more salt than that
nothing like a little deep-sea vent for breakfast
soup yummy
The necessity of the word "unalive" is so intensely depressing.
Their is one disease associated with Archaea called IMO (Intestinal Methanogan Overgrowth), it is related to SIBO (Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth). It is when an overgrowth of Archaea in the intestines produce too much Methane causing constipation and whole load of symptoms.
They do not cause the disease itself, more like a symptom. It is usually when the muscle and nerves of someone’s small intestines stop functioning optimally that bacteria, fungi and archaea begin to colonize the small intestines.
I am familiar with IMO because I am part of the SIBO/IBS community and it has been a struggle
I imagine it has more to do with the lifestyles of each domain. r versus K-selection. Bacteria are more prone to being in r-selective(easy but chaotic) environments, where as Archaea are in very K-selective(harsh but stable) environments. Archaea do not benefit from being pathogenic because pathogens proliferate in easy environments and can cause absolute devastation to K-selective ones. Imagine if Archaea were to try and be selfish and destructive in their very fine-tuned and harsh environments, they'd quickly upset the balance and upset the factors they thrive in(lots of dead microbes could lead to pH changes, vital nutrients getting depleted -- abundant new food sources could allow for more rapidly reproducing microbes to take advantage and cause even more issues). On the other hand, bacteria bloom and spread and flourish in environments like rotting fruit and dung. Throw in the different metabolisms between Archaea and the other two domains and it becomes like an insurmountable wall. If they did become more pathogenic they'd almost certainly be outcompeted by bacteria and Eukaryotes that already have a better lifestyle to capitalize on it and better pathways to utilize what is there.
If there are pathogenic archaea then I imagine they'd affect hosts on the peripheries on their extremophile ecosystems. Maybe fungi or specific plants that grow around geysers or extremely briny pools?
Interestingly, there are commensal archaea, I wonder if r vs k selection still applies in their case!
@@phylumchannel It should(since commensal relationships work out really well in K-selective environments from what I know), but commensal organisms can evolve into parasitic lifestyles and vice versa. Some examples would be parasitic plants that parasitize mycorrhizal fungi where as their closest relatives are symbiotic partners with those fungi. You also have the relationship with what are believed to be the closest living relatives of mitochondria, Rickettsiales, which are endoparasitic bacteria. The Chrompodellids are also endosymbionts with some animals(like corals) and their closest living relatives seem to be the Apicomplexans to whom the organisms that cause Malaria and Toxoplasmosis belong to.
Commensal archaea are probably the best bet for any pathogenic archaea if I had to guess.
Do you mind if I quote you for the PhyBit?
@@phylumchannel I'd be happy to be quoted, of course. I'll be looking forward to it!
Even if so... Then again - archaea is a whole domain of life. It's biomass is approximately the same as one of fungi. And yet we have parasitic fungi, we have multicellular and complex mushrooms, we have extremophilic fungi, fungi that are very sensitive to the environment and fungi that may survive almost anything.
Why then archaea is so specialized and conservative?
My guess is that archaea tend to live in extreme environments far from human habitation, so they haven't been able to interact long enough to find evolutionary niches to exploit, for the most part. Also living in an extreme environment means they don't have much competition, so perhaps they never needed to evolve to produce antimicrobial compounds and other toxins
Except that some of them live in us. They're famous for living in extreme environments, but they live everywhere everything else lives too.
@@WilliamLund-o1d Strange! Then I have no clue. It almost seems like deliberate engineering - like if life on earth was an experiment and you wanted to keep it within some safe bounds, you'd make something like archea.
I think it’s mainly their environment like you, as the low amount of organisms and the abundance of their sustenance in the form of chemicals in extreme environments. They simply don’t need to predate or compete because they’ve found their perfect niche.
@@WilliamLund-o1d I'd guess that the populations that live in us are more differentiated from the ones which live in soil than are their bacterial and fungal equivalents, and that those which live in the highest concentrations are so different from the other two as to basically be like cnidarians and us and requiring especially picky parasites.
Combine that with low niche competition within the Archaea and that's basically the exact opposite of what pathogenic development is suited to (lots of viable host species with dense populations and lots of competition for resource rich niches). Put simply, they're such a large and weird clade that our microbiome is probably kinda like an island habitat and so is basically populated by the Archaean equivalents of marsupials, afrotherians, and the paleognaths, you know the real oddballs that required phylogenetic analysis to understand the relatedness of and which tend to be significantly less prone to having (as many) transmissible diseases simply because their closest living relatives tend to be on entirely different continents...
There are extreme environments inside us
What fascinates me endlessly, is the fact that it would be more accurate to say that archaea are /our/ weird cousins, moreso than the bacteria's - as a matter of fact, the discovery and sequencing of the Lokiarchaeota, and subsequently the rest of the Asgard clade of archaea, has demonstrated pretty decisively that the eukaryotes arose from within an archaean lineage, and therefore, by modern taxonomic convention, we ARE archaea! Granted, one can still potentially validly think of the eukaryotes as being a distinct sort of composite organism, combining an archaean autosomal base with the endosymbiosis of 1-2 bacterial lineages (the ancestors of mitochondria and chloroplasts), and possibly even a fucking DNA retrovirus (possible origin of the eukaryotic nucleus), and therefore to place the eukaryotes within archaea would be fatally reductive. But it still always blows my mind to think that this obscure, understudied, often forgotten domain of life, that so often feels ecologically disconnected from us is actually where all complex life has its main taproot.
What makes this even more confusing is that evolutionary scientists are now theorizing that Eukaryotes evolved from Archaea (Asgardian variant), which swallowed up a bacteria (Proto-Mitochondria). If Eukaryotes truly evolve from Archaea, then why is their metabolism evolved to function more like a Bacteria than an Archaea ?
I'd figure it's for a better level of compatibility with their endosymbiont bacteria(mitochondria). The mitochondria do after all act as their means of producing ATP which has to be done at the cell membrane(as far as I know at least) and thus kind of like their stomach. Mitochondria also sometimes transfer genes to their hosts, which would be a direct reason for that similarity as they've literally inherited bacterial genes.
A neat thing is that some Eukaryotes who don't have mitochondria anymore were able to be identified as almost certainly having them in the past because of remnant genes relating to them and their function, like Pelomyxa.
@@Intelligenthumour That is the most probable explanation. And doubly true for plants who had to adapt to the needs of their Chloroplasts, originally most likely a photosynthetic
cyanobacterium that was engulfed by an early eukaryotic cell (along with the mitochondria). And plants are the basis of the food chain in the majority of ecosystems.
Its theorized that the first eukaryote may have already evolved a proto nucleus by then, as otherwise its genetic material would almost certainly be damaged by the bacteria multiplying inside it
@@4124V4TA-SNPCA-x Well, we have a whole range of eukaryotes who get rid of their chloroplasts. Even some who get rid of their mitochondria. Or ones who stole chloroplasts from other eukaryotes. Or ones who stole entire eukaryotes with chloroplasts. And some, who have chloroplasts and yet still remain predatory. A whole range of biodiversity.
@@thesenate1844 it's not certain. There's a whole range of theories about nucleus. Like, for instance double symbiosis, suggesting that nucleus is yet another symbiont or maybe a parasite that completely evicted or incorporated it's host's DNA.
Huh, just goes to show, if you don’t hurt anyone, nobody will have any reason to hurt you. good job, archaea.
AFAIK even though the human microbiome has Archaean members, the diversity of Archaeans in said microbiome is very low. Nearly all of them are from one group of relatively closely related Methanogens. Moreover, that also seems to be mostly true for other mammals as well.
Basically we only ever interact with one type of Archaea on a regular basis, whereas we interact with far more bacteria. That alone could account for this apparent bias. It would therefore be more accurate to say that the apparently docile nature of Archaea is both the result of their tenancy towards extreme environments (at the exclusion of non-extreme environments), combined with dumb luck.
I guess it's a better premise to sell on youtube.
I want a video about fungi
Like athletes Foot And Toxic mold and more?
Maybe Candida Albicans. and the other non-albican species that are potentially pathogenic, Tropicalis, Gabrata, Krusei, you can even compare to the major antibiotic resistance to the major antifungal resistant Candida Auris.
also Aspergillus as well could be fun.
I want a video about Prions.
@@The_Variable1 he is gonna make the video in the summer
Am i only one who reads fungi as fun guy
I love how Archea are so different, and yet we can't really be clear about *why* they're different. It's just so surreal that a whole domain remains so totally clouded.
It's kinda funny how I ran into this topic, I am an undergraduate student in pharmacy and was introduced to the idea of the kingdoms of biology in a lecture on evolutionary biology and systematics, then afterwards in my free time I started to read on the kingdom Archaea, that was the best rabbit hole ever I swear. Your video helps and I wish I found it before studying the topic 😅 cheers!
You start the video with pointing out how often forgotten and how under researched are the domain Archaea. And it is true to such a degree that i have watched the video with automatic subtitles and the AI never managed to write it down properly. Most frequent transcription were ARA and Ara, but it was also other things like arch, archa, arcane, etc. If in the future this video is lost but somehow this automatic transliteration survives archaeologist would think you made a video about the old, arcane studies of the ARAs. Maybe you are a witch, but at least an alchemist ;) .
This domain may be also paraphxletic with lots of unknown stuff thrown together. Just like pure slime molds, several groups of fungi and even many plant and animal clades. I would like to watch a video about archaea taxonomy by you.
Can you make a video on Parakaryon myojinensis (the strange organism that appears to be neither prokaryote not eukaryote, but for some reason nobody has never mentioned whether it's DNA has ever been sequenced)?
Also what are your thoughts on Kwang Jeon's experiment?
For some reason this comment keeps deleting itself
i just looked up the stuff you mentioned and I gotta say, holy shit.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's gotta be an artifact.
@@ooooneeee if I was the leader of the expedition that found the thing I'd be organising more, you'd have made the biggest biological discovery since evolution
Wow now I feel rejected and neglected by archae... why wont they infect my body 😢
if i'm to believe the culture media list.... not enough kissies 😔
don't worry, bacteria love you.
Some of them live in our gut though, just peacefully
frfr, so rude of them
Because you are not hot enough (I meant you are not above 2000C° or extremely toxic and radioactive)
Ur gonna be famous one day, i can just hear it in your voice.
HOW THE HELL DO U NOT HAVE 100k YET. i just found ur channel today and its amazing. microbiology nerds unite.
As a biologist I am currently in love with your channel. Keep up the great work
Archaea: The ultimate survivors
We need to start a new MCU: The Microbial Cinematic Universe.
You touched on it briefly when you mentioned that Archaea have different nutritional requirements. One thing to remember is that the way a lot of bacterial and fungal infections are identified is through culturing patient samples and identifying the predominant growth, mainly through the use of agar plates. These plates tend to be specialized towards a small subsection of the human microbiome and even some known pathogens won't grow without additional nutritional supplementation. It's possible that Archaean infections do occur, but may fail to appear by conventional identification methods. Coupled with the lack of research makes even identifying an Archaean infection significantly more difficult. Another factor could even involve masking by bacterial growth which could be attributed as the cause of infection instead of Archaea. For obvious ethical reasons, it's not like research teams can purposely attempt to infect people with Archaea to see if they cause infection. In the end the reason we're not finding Archaean pathogens is possibly because we're not looking for them.
I'm not sure if it's intentional, but at 4:30, when the graph was shown, the audio cut off for a few seconds. Again, not sure if this was intentional or just a small mistake but I thought I should mention it.
It was intentional - I finished scripting everything and felt like I couldn't publish the video without explaining the nuance for people who cared, but at the same time going through that explanation would have messed with the tempo of the story.
This video is great! I knew next to nothing about archaea before clicking on it, and now I'm scratching my head. Thanks for putting in the work to make it so accessible! 💕
Watched a couple videos and I was thinking this guy has to have atleast a million subs. Not a chance you should that few. Keep it up. You’ll blow up in no time
Amazing work! You've mastered the line between educational, and entertaining! I cant wait for more! :D
I have no enemies - Achorea
Dam I didn't know they were chill like that
I think it's because most species of Archaea evolved in very extreme and isolated environments. They simply had no pressure to develop complex structures and defenses for competition. They just had to evolve to take better advantage of their environment. Other bacteria faced significantly more competition.
that's wild, I'm so curious about this now omg
4:50 how is your rendition of E.coli the cutest rendition i think ive ever seen 💚💚
I just discovered your channel. Your videos are nice. Although your subscriber count is low, you'll surely get decent views once you start getting loyal viewers. I hope you continue making videos in this format.😊
wow i feel liking finding deliverance in that light right now
I believe that archaea does not harm you because it does not need too. What I mean is that since archaea had evolved in different scenarios they were able to use resources that other cells don't so there is no competing therefore meaning that attacking mechanisms were never needed. As well, since they developed in different environments they may just already have protection from predators due to there protection from there environment.
8:35 is that because their genetics are completely different ?, a bacteriophage would've a hard time doing anything with an archaeal transcription machinery even if their genetic material got into the cell, considering they're more similar to eukaryotes than bacteria in those regards. But then archaean phages exist too as mentioned in the video, a cursory search seems to say that the archaeal viruses we've studied are very different from bacteriophages.
Sounds right! It's a mystery why archaean phages didn't seem to confer pathogenicity, but there are some fun discussions in the subsequent PhyBit
According to a PBS Eons video, "Where did viruses come from?", viruses can infect archaea
Oh, BTW, I'm still waiting for a dengue virus vídeo :b
The list is long but it is on there... There's a specific opportunity that might arise next year...
I both love and hate you for this video it seems like there’s a 100% chance of there being such a pathogen and it’s really frustrating that there simply isn’t but it’s so god damn interesting
Effect achieved
What about autoimmune disorders for a future video? Could be plenty of fun stuff to cover in that sphere, especially given the channel branding :p
Latest science: there are really only two domains of life: 1. Bacteria, 2. Archaea. We're specifically Archaea of the Heimdallarcheota type. It just so happens that we kidnapped some bacterium related to typhus fevers to fend ourselves against oxygen, and as a side effect boast our energy levels.
@@rursus8354 where dud you hear that? I'd love to read the paper!
Typhus? Don't you mean rickets? (Mitochondria are more closely related to Rickettsia, the bacteria that are responsible for rickets)
Also, just pointing out that you wrote "boast" instead of "boost".
@@clayxros576his source is he made it TF up
@@StoniTheOni he ain't making it up, at least not all of it. He seems to be talking about "symbiogenesis"
1:04 hot take- two domain system, eukaryotes are archaea too.
This shouldn't be a hot take but I bet it will for at least a decade
One very speculative thing that comes to my mind is that as I understand it (with my very limited understanding, that might be totally incorrect) is that many archaea are slow growing and long lived. If this is the case it may simply be that most diseases caused by archaea are slow developing diseases where it is much more difficult to link cause and effect for the disease.
This video was actually fun. i completly forgot about the existence of this absurd domaine and now i know it has less sense than i thought.
Could simply be that the difference between the preferred environments of Archaea is so extreme that our microbiomes are basically island populations, which are notorious for weird quirks like not having predator response, having all manner of convergent and divergent evolutions like a bird that acts like a shrew and hunts almost exclusively with its NOSTRILS (which birds typically have little interest in using for anything more than breathing), and elephants that look like marmots (I see nothing in the paenungulata that I wouldn't mind calling an "Elephant" if it allows me to call Hyraxes "Marmot Elephants")
Aw man I was totally expecting you to have a little character for Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
This video has made me realize there’s a whole area of science I know nothing about!
personally I hope to live not to see the answer of this question, because essentially the only way to have an answer is to find an archaen disease.
You dont need to fight to survive when everything else fights for you.
I know that this might sound evil scientist-esc, but what if we try engineering an arachea pathogen?
Not to create some super disease, but to see if organisms like lab mice, have any effective immune response. It might give some insight into whether there have been arachea pathogens in the past.
Also it would be really cool.
That sounds like a very bad idea. How about we just implant regular archaea into mice cells.
And Archaea are also unbelievably simple organisms
They're not? They're more complex than bacteria, some have rudimentary intermembrane systems.
When eukaryotes first evolved from the endosymbiotic merger between an archaeon and a bacteria, it appears that, at least for the eukaryotic lineage that survived the transition to become the common ancestor of today's eukaryotes, the eukaryotes ended up with most of their information processing genes coming from the archaeon partner, and most of their metabolic genes coming from their bacterial endosymbiont. This is one of the reasons why we humans find archaeon metabolism so "weird". Eukaryotes and bacteria basically share a common ancestry for most of their metabolism and so there are lots of point of commonality between eukaryotes and at least certain types of bacteria in terms of their basic metabolism. But archaea have been doing their own unique things metabolically which eukaryotes did not inherit from them.
Since pathogenicity requires a lot of metabolic exploitation, this could be the reason why archaea haven't become pathogens of humans or other eukaryotes.
One side question to consider is, are there any archaea that are pathogenic to other archaea, or bacteria?
Only 1:26 into the video and there's already a freking Undertarle reference lmfao 😂
OP: "sometime after I did my rabies video I went off looking for the next pathogen to cover (...)"
me: "soobscribeh"
"I have no enemies" -Archoea
Perhaps the lack of cytotoxic machinery in Archaea (which evolved to give bacteria a fighting chance against other bacteria) is exactly why no virus has evolved to give archaea pathogenic abilities. Archaea simply aren’t geared towards producing toxic chemicals necessary to promote infection.
This is fascinating, I knew archea were understudied but now this extremely. I too hope we find out more about them in our lifetime. 🤓
love this. superb topic!
Plant pathologist here- there are no known Archea plant pathogens either (at least that have been documented).
Correlation, not causation. According to the NIH "The presence of methanogenic Archaea has been correlated with various human disease states, such as gum disease, gastrointestinal ailments, and colon cancer 10-15, but no causative relationships have been established." For the audience.
I'm pretty new to the channel. Interesting video but I don't have a biology background would've helped me if you took some time to explain what Archaea are!
So they're basically our real life microscopic air nomads
am a big fan of archaea now
1:26 oh no, don’t tell me the tik tok censorship got to cells too
Whoa i just discovered an awesome youtube channel.
Archaea being a homie, wonder what benefits they give us
My science teacher pronounces fungi as “funji”
I've seen some hypothesis that it has to do with the membrane, I don't remember exactly the details; the bacterial/eukaryotic form of the lipid bilayer is best suited to some form(s) of energy production that happens to be conducive to parasitic or competitive lifestyles. Something like that.
From an evolutionary standpoint, the absence of pathogenic archaea might be because the niche of viruses turning prokaryotes into pathogens is already dominated by phages affecting bacteria?
You're the GOAT
They just wanna survive, don’t hate.
But if we can isolate and multiply archea and their viruses, we could introduce virulence factors to the archea phages/viruses and disprove (or prove) the hypothesis. Right? Is it actually that hard to do?
Man, I think I love archea.
There are so many different synonyms for "to kill", you don't have to say "unalive".
How about bacteria: salmonella typhi, lactobacillus and bifidobacterium, campylobacter, staphylococcus aureus, streptococcus Pyogenes vibrio cholera and vibrio Vulnificus helicobacter pylori fungi: candida, rhizopus, apserilligus Protozoa: toxoplasma, plasmodium here are some video options
Maybe they are just very vulnerable to our complimentary system?
You should talk about Giruses
Actually they are so powerful that all their hosts went extinct. They had no hosts to survive and disappeared.
Only amateur pathogens extinct all their hosts, there are strong revolutionary pressures against that.
4:32
Looks like the typical Plague Inc. cure graph on Mega Brutal.
If bacteria and archea are so similar, wouldn't it be better to split life into 2 domains: eucarya and procarya, and then bacteria and archea can be the 2 kingdoms. Looks nicer to me
It existed, 100 years ago, before philogenetics and the discovery of archaea. Modern biology prefers taxa that are defined as "X and all its descendants", and since eucarya evolved from procarya, in this system, they're not sibling branches.
And fun fact, bacteria and archaea might have similar shape, but they're actually two most distantly related groups of living creatures on earth, and their biochemistry is quite different.
The three-domain system might be replaced with two-domain system in the future, with domains bacteria and archaea. That is because there's now quite plenty of evidence that the ancestor of eucarya is archaea, which makes eucarya a part of the archaea domain if we define it as "common ancestor and all of its descendants".
Archaea seem harmless but if you meet one in a dark ally watch out!
It might be that some archaea would cause disease, but something fundamental about them makes them easy immune system tagets, which makes it difficult for them to evolve new weapons as a pathogen, since they are so bad at being pathogens, there are no pathogenic archaea to get pressure to be better pathogens?
Archaea is terrifying
They obliterate metal in seconds!!
(This is an MGSV joke)
prion video???? yes please
This is some pretty high quality stuff for not quite 10k subs, ill help you out 😉
Hasn't Eukarya included inside the domain Archaea?
I might have a lot of archaea cuz I never complain about the heat even if I am wearing a black jacket in a country that can reach over 43° C (over 100° F)
bacteria: i love my hooman body
phages: now u will destroy it with ur friends!
bacteria: so why is that dumb iduwuot is not atacking our body?
archea: idk why im even here but i liked this hot nose :3
I think that it wouldn't be realistic for an archaea to evolve to be pathogenic, since their main survival strat is to go were no competition is (i.e hottest places on earth)
Because of that, there aren't really any hosts for them to become pathogenic to
I’ve literally never heard of archaea
Woahh!!! This is so cool! I never knew Archaea existed. You're videos are so well done and interesting! I really hope you blow up!
Sounds like either Archea or the rest of us are aliens.
Can scientists just build labs right at hot springs to study Archaea there? Or would construction cause too much pollution?
Ah, now I know what Chiga is.
We are Archaea.
I really, really hate the phrase "unalive."
Tell that to the archaea that rusted my helicopter out of the sky over Afghanistan and dropped me into an ambush
I was wondering, whats your favourite CD receptor on T lymphocytes?
I have no knowledge about the topic. But what if archaea is very good at self destructing when encountering foreign dna/rna entering them. Thus limiting viruses that would have been able to enter, from ever really be able to adapt and multiply.
Cool hypothesis! I have no idea if it's right!
But it makes no sense for single celled organisms to self destruct. Self destruct is useful in multicelled organisms because it protects other cells. I am not a expert but I don't know if single celled organisms self destructs. Cool theory nonetheless.
@@balrajpadda7558 makes no sense for an individual but maybe it could be a way to protect relatives!
@@phylumchannel This whole archaea thing is so confusing. Yeah it could be to protect relatives but this feature not being in bacteria(atleast not as much as archaea even tho bacteria had more time to adapt self destruct and had more evolution pressure to do it since they live in environments filled with viruses) adds a whole layer of blind luck.
2:31 Actually, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, it just isn't conclusive evidence and it's also circumstantial. Still evidence though. Still counts.
You know what, that's fair