Concept explainers
Some believe that archaea should not be separate from bacteria because both groups are prokaryotic. Do you agree or disagree? Explain your reasoning.
Archaea and bacteria are referred to as prokaryotic unicellular organisms. Initially, archaea were classified as bacteria, thereby receiving the name archaebacteria. Since 1960s, genetic, biochemical, and genomic analyses are combined with developed methods for archaeal and bacterial cell imaging. As a result, it was concluded that Archaea and Bacteria are belongs to different taxa.
Explanation of Solution
Archaea and bacteria are referred to as prokaryotic organisms. Based on morphological features, they seem to be the same taxonomic group. However, based on genomic analysis, it was revealed that both organisms belong to different domains. In 1977, the American biophysicist and microbiologist revealed the third domain of life, which is known as archaea. This is achieved by the analysis of phylogenetic taxonomy of 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA).
The other features that reveals that they are belonged to different domain are as follows:
The plasma membrane of archaea is made up of strikingly different lipids compared to those present in the plasma membrane of bacteria. The bacterial plasma membrane is comprised of ester-linked phospholipids like hapanoids and sterols, whereas the archaeal plasma membrane is comprised of diether glycerol or tetraether glycerol. Secondly, the cell wall of archaea is diverse compared to bacterial cell wall. This is because; the cell wall of archaea lacks peptidoglycan whereas the bacterial cell wall is made up of peptidoglycan.
Therefore, the above explained differences made this statement to disagree. Hence, archaea should be separated from the bacteria.
Want to see more full solutions like this?
Chapter 20 Solutions
MICROBIOLOGY LAB MANUAL WITH CONNECT
- Your friend believes that prokaryotes are always detrimental and pathogenic. How would you explain to them that they are wrong?arrow_forwardBoth bacteria and archaea used to be known as prokaryotes. True or false?arrow_forwardbacteria and archaea are both prokaryotes. But Carl Woese proposed that archaea are closer to eukaryotes. What’s the evidence for his theory?arrow_forward
- There are two types of prokaryotes: bacteria and____________________.arrow_forwardArchaea and Eukaryotes are more closely related to each other than Eubacteria and Archaea are.arrow_forwardArchaea are most closely related to which of the following major groups on the tree of life? a. Bacteria b. Eucarya c. Plantae d. None of the abovearrow_forward
- Bacteria and archaea are similar in size. Explain what other characteristics bacteria and archaea have in common and the differences between them.arrow_forwardAna wants to engineer a super archaea which can survive and thrive in extremely hot and hypersaline water. What characteristics should she use to achieve the organism? Provide at least 3 and justify your answer.arrow_forwardWhy were Archaea originally thought to be simply unusual forms of Bacteria? What lines of evidence showed this domain to form a distinct branch on the tree of life?arrow_forward
- Which of the following is a characteristic that archaea had but which bacteria did not? Group of answer choices having an ether linkage in the phospholipid membrane having a 70S sized ribosome having no nuclear membrane having a circular chromosomearrow_forwardWhat do you mean by domain bacteria? Explain it briefly.arrow_forwardDespite many interesting characteristics and features observed in Archaea, why is there not much study about these organisms?arrow_forward
- Concepts of BiologyBiologyISBN:9781938168116Author:Samantha Fowler, Rebecca Roush, James WisePublisher:OpenStax CollegeBiology Today and Tomorrow without Physiology (Mi...BiologyISBN:9781305117396Author:Cecie Starr, Christine Evers, Lisa StarrPublisher:Cengage Learning