Abstract
The origin of eukaryotes was a formative but poorly understood event in the history of life. Current hypotheses of eukaryogenesis differ principally in the timing of mitochondrial endosymbiosis relative to the acquisition of other eukaryote novelties 1. Discriminating among these hypotheses has been challenging, because there are no living lineages representative of intermediate steps within eukaryogenesis. However, many eukaryotic cell functions are contingent on genes that emerged from duplication events during eukaryogenesis 2,3. Consequently, the timescale of these duplications can provide insights into the sequence of steps in the evolutionary assembly of the eukaryotic cell. Here we show, using a relaxed molecular clock 4, that the process of eukaryogenesis spanned the Mesoarchaean to late Palaeoproterozoic eras. Within these constraints, we dated the timing of these gene duplications, revealing that the eukaryotic host cell already had complex cellular features before mitochondrial endosymbiosis, including an elaborated cytoskeleton, membrane trafficking, endomembrane, phagocytotic machinery and a nucleus, all between 3.0 and 2.25 billion years ago, after which mitochondrial endosymbiosis occurred. Our results enable us to reject mitochondrion-early scenarios of eukaryogenesis 5, instead supporting a complexified-archaean, late-mitochondrion sequence for the assembly of eukaryote characteristics. Our inference of a complex archaeal host cell is compatible with hypotheses on the adaptive benefits of syntrophy 6,7 in oceans that would have remained largely anoxic for more than a billion years 8,9.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Nature |
| Early online date | 3 Dec 2025 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 3 Dec 2025 |
Data Availability Statement
The dataset generated in the course of this study is available at the University of Bristol data repository (data.bris; https://data.bris.ac.uk/data/) at https://doi.org/10.5523/bris.tjfgfs0kmr532t2gvqpcdbmto.Funding
This work was supported by a grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF9741 to T.A.W., P.C.J.D., D.P., G.J.S. and A.S.). This study was conducted with the support of John Templeton Foundation (grants 62220 and 63451 to T.A.W., P.C.J.D., D.P., G.J.S. and A.S.; the opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation), the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/T012773/1 and BB/Y003624/1 to P.C.J.D.) and the Leverhulme Trust (RF-2022-167 to P.C.J.D.; and RPG-2024-030 to D.P.). A.S. has also received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 947317, ASymbEL).
| Funders | Funder number |
|---|---|
| European Research Council | |
| John Templeton Foundation | 63451, 62220 |
| Horizon 2020 Framework Programme | 947317 |
| Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation | GBMF9741 |
| Leverhulme Trust | RF-2022-167, RPG-2024-030 |
| Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council | BB/Y003624/1, BB/T012773/1 |

