Hubbry Logo
BikontBikontMain
Open search
Bikont
Community hub
Bikont
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Bikont
Bikont
Bikont
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Bikonts
A radiolarian
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Domain: Eukaryota
(unranked): Orthokaryotes
(unranked): Neokaryotes
(unranked): Bikonta
Cavalier-Smith, 1993
Subgroups
Synonyms
  • Biciliata Cavalier-Smith, 1993
  • Diaphoretickes Adl et al., 2012
  • Diphoda Derelle et al., 2015

A bikont ("two flagella") is any of the eukaryotic organisms classified in the group Bikonta. Many single-celled and multi-celled organisms are members of the group, and these, as well as the presumed ancestor, have two flagella.[1]

Enzymes

[edit]

Another shared trait of bikonts is the fusion of two genes into a single unit: the genes for thymidylate synthase (TS) and dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) encode a single protein with two functions.[2]

The genes are separately translated in unikonts.

Relationships

[edit]

Some research suggests that a unikont (a eukaryotic cell with a single flagellum) was the ancestor of opisthokonts (Animals, Fungi, and related forms) and Amoebozoa, and a bikont was the ancestor of Archaeplastida (Plants and relatives), Excavata, Rhizaria, and Chromalveolata. Cavalier-Smith has suggested that Apusozoa, which are typically considered incertae sedis, are in fact bikonts.[3]

Relationships within the bikonts are not yet clear. Cavalier-Smith has grouped the Excavata and Rhizaria into the Cabozoa and the Archaeplastida and Chromalveolata into the Corticata, but at least one other study has suggested that the Rhizaria and Chromalveolata form a clade.[4]

An alternative to the Unikont–Bikont division was suggested by Derelle et al. in 2015,[5] where they proposed the acronyms Opimoda–Diphoda respectively, as substitutes to the older terms. The name Diphoda is formed from the letters of DIscoba and diaPHOretickes (shown in capitals). [suggested singular forms are Opneme-Dipheme respectively][citation needed]

Cladogram

[edit]

A "classical" cladogram (data from 2012, 2015) is:[6][7]

Eukaryotes

However, a cladogram (data from 2015, 2016) with the root in Excavata is[5][8][9]

Eukaryotes

The corticates correspond roughly to the bikonts. While Haptophyta, Cryptophyta, Glaucophyta, Rhodophyta, the SAR supergroup and Viridiplantae are usually considered monophyletic, Archaeplastida may be paraphyletic, and the mutual relationships between these phyla are still to be fully resolved.

Recent reconstructions placed Archaeplastida and Hacrobia together in an "HA supergroup" or "AH supergroup", which was a sister clade to the SAR supergroup within the SAR/HA supergroup. However, this seems to have fallen out of favor as the monophyly of hacrobia has come under dispute.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Bikont

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Bikonts, also known as Bikonta, are a proposed supergroup of eukaryotic organisms defined by their ancestral possession of two flagella (or cilia) emerging from a single anterior kinetid, distinguishing them from the single posterior flagellum characteristic of unikonts. This clade was introduced by biologist Thomas Cavalier-Smith in 2002 as part of a broader phylogenetic classification of protozoa, positing that the last eukaryotic common ancestor was a uniciliate phagotroph from which bikonts diverged early, retaining a biciliate configuration. Ultrastructurally, bikonts feature two basal bodies per kinetid, with the posterior one typically older and associated with a microtubular root system supporting the cell's anterior-directed motility. In Cavalier-Smith's original framework, bikonts encompassed a diverse array of lineages excluding unikonts (such as and Opisthokonta), including the Plantae (, , and glaucophyte ), Chromalveolata (such as diatoms, , and apicomplexans), (e.g., euglenids and trypanosomes), (e.g., cercozoans and foraminiferans), and related groups like Apusozoa. These taxa were unified by shared cytological traits, such as a semi-rigid cortex in some subgroups and reticulopodia or filose in others, alongside molecular like the fusion of and genes. The bikont concept supported a root for the eukaryotic tree between unikonts and bikonts, implying that complex traits like paired centrioles and anterior flagella arose once in the bikont lineage. Although influential in early eukaryotic , the bikont supergroup has faced significant challenges from phylogenomic analyses using large datasets of conserved proteins, which often fail to recover bikont and instead suggest alternative , such as within or near . For instance, studies of rare genomic changes and bacterial-derived genes have pinpointed the eukaryotic between modified versions of unikonts and bikonts but without strong support for the original , leading to its replacement by more robust groupings like , , and in contemporary trees of life as of 2025. Despite this, elements of the bikont hypothesis persist in discussions of flagellar evolution and ultrastructural homologies across eukaryotic diversity.

Definition and Characteristics

Etymology and Core Concept

The term "bikont" derives from the Greek prefix "bi-" meaning "two" and "kontos" meaning "pole" or "flagellum," referring to the ancestral possession of two flagella in these organisms. It was coined by Thomas Cavalier-Smith in his 2002 paper proposing a revised classification of eukaryotic protozoa based on morphological and ultrastructural traits. At its core, the bikont concept defines a major clade of eukaryotes whose last common ancestor possessed two heterodynamic flagella: an anterior tinsel flagellum for propulsion and a posterior smooth flagellum for steering, a configuration distinct from the single flagellum typical of unikonts. Although influential, the bikont clade has been challenged by subsequent phylogenomic studies. This biflagellate kinetid is considered a key synapomorphy, reflecting an early evolutionary innovation in eukaryotic motility and cell organization that facilitated diverse modes of locomotion and feeding. Bikonts thus represent one of the two primary branches in the eukaryotic tree, encompassing a broad array of lineages that diverged after the acquisition of this flagellar apparatus. Bikonts include diverse eukaryotic groups such as various protists, , and certain , underscoring their role as a foundational supergroup in eukaryotic . Supporting this morphological hypothesis, molecular evidence like the fused thymidylate synthase-dihydrofolate reductase (TS-DHFR) provides a genetic synapomorphy unique to bikonts, though detailed phylogenetic implications are explored elsewhere.

Key Morphological Traits

Bikonts are characterized by an ancestral condition of possessing two flagella, or cilia, arising from a pair of kinetosomes arranged in a characteristic two-pole configuration, which supports their and cellular . In many lineages, such as stramenopiles within the SAR clade, the anterior flagellum is often equipped with hair-like structures known as mastigonemes or vanes that enhance propulsion through undulating motion, while the posterior flagellum is typically smooth; excavates may have variations, such as a dorsal vane on the posterior flagellum in some groups. In rhizarians, the anterior flagellum may be smoother. This biflagellate apparatus contrasts with the single typical of unikonts, underscoring a fundamental divergence in eukaryotic locomotor evolution. Cytoskeletal elements in bikonts further reflect this dual organization, featuring paired microtubular rootlets emanating from the kinetosomes that stabilize the cell and facilitate directed movement. A prominent synapomorphy among many bikont groups is the presence of a ventral feeding groove or , often supported by these microtubular arrays, which enables phagotrophic nutrition by channeling prey toward an oral apparatus; this is evident in excavates like jakobids and bicosoecids, as well as such as . In rhizarians, such as cercozoans, the cytoskeleton includes radiating or filose that extend the two-pole theme to foraging structures. Trait variation occurs across bikont diversity, with the biflagellate condition retained in free-living protists like euglenozoans and cercozoans for active swimming, but frequently lost or modified in derived multicellular forms. For instance, in the Plantae clade (archaeplastids), flagella are present in unicellular such as but absent in vascular land plants, where sessile lifestyles have rendered them obsolete. Similarly, in some rhizarians and , flagella may be reduced to gametes or replaced by amoeboid locomotion, highlighting adaptive shifts from the ancestral motile state.

Distinguishing Cellular Features

Bikonts exhibit distinct non-flagellar cellular features that contribute to their polarized organization and metabolic adaptations, setting them apart from unikonts. A key trait is the orientation of the Golgi apparatus, which is typically positioned anterior to the nucleus in many bikont lineages, facilitating directed secretion and vesicle trafficking aligned with cellular polarity. For instance, in bicosoecids such as Cafeteria roenbergensis, the single Golgi body is located anterior to the nucleus and near the flagellar bases. In contrast, unikonts like choanoflagellates show the Golgi apparatus positioned posterior to the nucleus, reflecting differences in cytoskeletal and secretory dynamics. Mitochondrial cristae in bikonts are predominantly tubular or discoidal, providing increased surface area for respiratory processes compared to the flat cristae characteristic of unikonts. This morphology is evident across diverse bikont groups, such as stramenopiles and rhizaria, where tubular cristae predominate, although secondary modifications like flat cristae appear in excavates. These structural variations support efficient energy production tailored to the ecological niches of bikonts, including free-living and parasitic lifestyles. Plastid traits further highlight bikont diversity, with photosynthetic members featuring chlorophyll-based pigments acquired through endosymbiotic events. , a core bikont lineage, possess primary plastids derived from a single cyanobacterial endosymbiosis, containing and phycobilins in or and b in . Chromalveolates, another bikont supergroup, generalize secondary endosymbiosis with a , yielding four-membraned plastids rich in and c, as seen in stramenopiles and haptophytes. These endosymbiotic innovations underscore the role of acquisition in bikont evolutionary success.

Historical Development

Initial Proposal

The bikont hypothesis was initially proposed by Thomas Cavalier-Smith in his classification of eukaryotic kingdoms, where he introduced the branch Bikonta within the kingdom to encompass a major clade of eukaryotes characterized by the possession of two cilia or flagella. This grouping included 16 phyla of primarily unicellular or plasmodial organisms with mitochondria, distinguishing them from other protozoan lineages. Cavalier-Smith's framework positioned Bikonta as a fundamental division within . The rationale for this proposal stemmed from ultrastructural analyses using electron microscopy, which revealed shared morphological features in the flagellar apparatus across diverse groups. Specifically, bikonts were unified by the presence of a bikinetid, a paired ciliary or flagellar structure with distinct insertion points on the cell surface and associated rootlet systems that provide and orientation. These traits, including tubular or flat mitochondrial cristae (as opposed to discoid in ), were interpreted as synapomorphies indicating a common ancestry. This initial proposal emerged during ongoing debates in the early about the root of the eukaryotic , where molecular and morphological were beginning to challenge traditional groupings. By emphasizing ultrastructural over emerging genetic sequences, the aimed to resolve uncertainties in phylogeny and establish a stable higher-level for eukaryotes.

Subsequent Revisions and Synonyms

Following the initial proposal of the bikont concept, Thomas Cavalier-Smith elevated Bikonta to infrakingdom status in 2002, supported by phylogenetic analyses of a derived dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate gene fusion that rooted the eukaryotic between Unikonts and Bikonts. In 2004, Cavalier-Smith further refined the taxonomic scope by incorporating chromalveolate lineages—such as stramenopiles and —into a new supergroup called Chromalveolata within Bikonta, justified by evidence of a shared secondary endosymbiosis of a and unified membrane topologies in their plastids. Key revisions in the late 2000s reflected expanding genomic datasets; in 2009, was integrated into the Bikont lineage through its transfer from kingdom to an expanded kingdom , as multigene phylogenies confirmed its close relationship with cercozoans and , forming the core of the SAR clade. This integration contributed to the 2013 proposal of the Corticata supergroup by Cavalier-Smith, which united , , and related Bikont-derived lineages based on shared cortical or microtubule bands and cytochrome c biogenesis pathways, highlighting the role of growing sequence in delineating higher-level eukaryotic relationships. In the , synonyms emerged to describe the broader Bikont assemblage; Adl et al. introduced in 2012 as a major clade encompassing SAR, , , and Haptophyta, defined node-based on phylogenomic trees and distinguished from by unique combinations of ribosomal protein genes and rRNA expansion segments. By 2015, the Opimoda–Diphoda rooting model repositioned the eukaryotic root between Opimoda () and Diphoda (encompassing and ), with Diphoda serving as a for the derived Bikont radiation, validated by phylogenies of bacterial-derived eukaryotic proteins that resolved long-standing ambiguities in tree rooting.

Taxonomic Scope

Major Included Lineages

The classical bikont hypothesis encompasses several major eukaryotic groups, unified by ancestral possession of two flagella and the derived fusion of and genes. , also known as Plantae, represents the primary lineage of eukaryotes with s derived directly from an ancient cyanobacterial endosymbiont; it includes three main divisions: the green plants and algae (, encompassing and land plants), (Rhodophyta), and glaucophytes (Glaucophyta), which retain primitive features like walls. Excavata comprises diverse anaerobic and aerobic protists characterized by a ventral feeding groove or cytostome, reflecting their name; key subgroups include diplomonads (e.g., Giardia), parabasalids (e.g., trichomonads like Trichomonas), and euglenozoans (e.g., euglenids and kinetoplastids such as Trypanosoma). Rhizaria is a supergroup of mostly marine, often filose or reticulose amoeboid protists, many with intricate mineralized tests; prominent lineages are foraminiferans (shelled amoebae forming calcium carbonate tests), radiolarians (with silica skeletons and axopodia for prey capture), cercozoans, and Apusozoa (filopodial amoeboflagellates). Chromalveolata unites chromists and , forming a diverse assemblage of photosynthetic, parasitic, and predatory forms; chromists () include stramenopiles (heterokonts, such as diatoms with silica frustules and oomycetes like ), haptophytes (e.g., coccolithophores with scales), and cryptophytes (flagellated with nucleomorphs from red algal secondary endosymbiosis); alveolates feature cortical alveoli and encompass for motility and apicomplexans like as parasites.

Boundaries and Exclusions

The primary exclusion from the Bikont clade encompasses the Unikonts, which comprise Opisthokonta (including animals, fungi, and choanoflagellates) and . These groups are distinguished by the presence of a single posterior in motile forms and separate, unfused genes for (TS) and (DHFR), contrasting with the ancestral biflagellate condition and fused TS-DHFR characteristic of Bikonts.

Molecular Evidence

Fused Enzymes as a Synapomorphy

The bifunctional - (TS-DHFR) enzyme represents a key genetic synapomorphy proposed for bikonts, where the genes encoding (TS) and (DHFR) are fused into a single bifunctional protein. TS catalyzes the of deoxyuridine monophosphate to deoxythymidine monophosphate, a critical step in , while DHFR reduces dihydrofolate to tetrahydrofolate, regenerating the cofactor necessary for this reaction and supporting overall . This fusion enables coordinated expression and potential substrate channeling between the two enzymatic domains, enhancing efficiency in across diverse environmental conditions. In evolutionary terms, the TS-DHFR fusion is absent in unikonts, where TS and DHFR exist as separate genes, but is present in many major bikont lineages such as Plantae, Alveolata, Stramenopiles, and , though variable in (e.g., absent in ). This derived gene fusion provides evidence for the of a subset of bikonts, supporting a deep divergence between bikonts and unikonts early in evolution, though its reliability is questioned due to losses in some subgroups. The fusion's presence in diverse groups underscores a shared biochemical innovation that likely contributed to their adaptive success in varied niches. However, subsequent studies have noted its inconsistent distribution, complicating its use as a strict synapomorphy. The TS-DHFR fusion was first identified through comparative genome analyses, revealing its presence in diverse bikont groups such as and . For instance, genome sequencing of (a ) confirmed the bifunctional TS-DHFR , integral to its folate-dependent pathways. Similarly, in (an ), the fusion is evident in the nuclear genome, where the bifunctional is essential for the parasite's replication. Critically, the fusion's distribution in non-photosynthetic bikonts like demonstrates that it originated prior to the acquisition of plastids in the lineage, reinforcing its status as an ancient synapomorphy predating major endosymbiotic events.

Additional Genetic Markers

Bikonts are supported by several additional genetic markers beyond fused enzymes, including distinctive patterns in ribosomal proteins, gene content, and multi-gene phylogenetic analyses. Distinctive ribosomal protein compositions have been noted in the , a major subgroup within the proposed bikonts, contributing to differences in ribosomal structure and function compared to unikonts. Shared gene content among non-archaeplastid bikonts includes cyanobacterial-derived genes acquired through secondary endosymbiosis, such as those involved in and carbon fixation pathways. These genes, transferred from engulfed red or green algal endosymbionts, are present in groups like chromalveolates and haptophytes, providing a genomic signature of ancient endosymbiotic events that unified diverse bikont lineages. Pre-2015 phylogenomic studies using concatenated datasets of 100 or more genes revealed strong phylogenetic signal for bikont clustering, placing major lineages like , Alveolata, and Stramenopiles together as a monophyletic group separate from unikonts. For instance, an analysis of 85 conserved proteins confirmed the inclusion of within unicellular bikonts, highlighting the robustness of multi-gene approaches in resolving deep eukaryotic relationships despite challenges from long-branch attraction. Later analyses, however, have challenged the overall of bikonts using larger datasets.

Phylogenetic Position

Relation to Unikonts

The bikont-unikont dichotomy represents the primary bifurcation in eukaryotic , as proposed by Cavalier-Smith, dividing eukaryotes into two major clades that diverged from the last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA). In classical phylogenetic models, the root of the eukaryotic tree lies precisely between these clades, supported by analyses of rare genomic events such as the fusion of and genes, which is absent in unikonts but present in bikonts. This split posits bikonts as encompassing diverse lineages with ancestral biciliate (two-flagellum) organization, including Plantae, chromalveolates, and rhizarians, while unikonts include amoebozoans and (such as animals and fungi) with ancestral uniciliate (single-flagellum) structure. Bikonts and unikonts share a common ancestry in LECA, which possessed a hydrogenosome-like derived from an alphaproteobacterial , enabling proto-aerobic , and a sophisticated featuring , tubulins, and associated motors for cellular and division. Fossil-calibrated molecular phylogenies estimate this divergence occurred approximately 1.8 billion years ago, marking the onset of major eukaryotic diversification during the era. However, this rooting has become controversial in recent phylogenomic studies (as of 2025), with alternative positions proposed. Key contrasts between the clades arise from their ancestral flagellar apparatuses, with bikonts exhibiting two flagella arising from orthogonally arranged basal bodies and unikonts a single , influencing early evolutionary trajectories in locomotion and feeding mechanisms. This distinction implies that amoeboid locomotion, prevalent in unikont lineages like , evolved independently from the excavate-style ventral groove feeding and swimming seen in basal bikont groups such as , highlighting divergent adaptations from the shared ciliary heritage of LECA.

Internal Relationships and Supergroups

The internal relationships among bikonts, a proposed of eukaryotes characterized by ancestral possession of two flagella, have been hypothesized to involve several major supergroups based on shared ultrastructural, genetic, and biochemical synapomorphies. These include Cabozoa and Corticata, with additional debated groupings such as the HA supergroup. These proposals stem primarily from phylogenomic analyses and comparative morphology, though ongoing debates highlight the challenges in resolving deep eukaryotic divergences due to long-branch attraction and incomplete sampling. Cabozoa, proposed by Cavalier-Smith in 1999, unites and as a potentially retaining ancestral traits from early bikont evolution, such as reduced mitochondria (mitosomes in and hydrogenosomes or mitosomes in some ) and a shared cytoskeletal involving ventral feeding grooves and extrusomes. This grouping suggests a common origin for these lineages as free-living, biciliate predators that diversified through organelle reduction and pseudopodial adaptations in , with molecular support from multigene phylogenies showing moderate bootstrap values for their sister relationship. However, the of Cabozoa has been contested in broader phylogenomic studies, which sometimes place closer to other chromalveolate-like groups rather than . Corticata, elevated to superkingdom status by Cavalier-Smith and colleagues in 2015, encompasses (including land plants and glaucophytes) and (comprising SAR—Stramenopiles, , —and Hacrobia), linked by the synapomorphy of cortical alveoli (small membrane sacs beneath the plasma membrane) and associated subpellicular that support a structured for feeding and . This is robustly supported in multiprotein tree analyses, reflecting an ancestral neokaryote excavate-like ancestor that acquired Golgi-derived alveoli and secondary red algal plastids, with shared periplastid reticulum structures facilitating in chromist members. Plastid-related features, such as and shared derlin paralogues for envelope biogenesis, further reinforce these connections, distinguishing Corticata from non-plastid-bearing bikont lineages. The HA supergroup, an earlier proposal linking Haptophytes (within Hacrobia) and based on shared red algal-derived s and ciliary transition zone features like short transition zones and axosomes, has faced significant scrutiny since 2010. Phylogenomic evidence from nuclear genes has repeatedly failed to recover their , instead supporting separate acquisitions of secondary plastids in these lineages and placing Haptophytes closer to Cryptophytes or Stramenopiles in revised trees. This challenges the original chromalveolate framework that included HA as a core component, highlighting horizontal gene transfers and differential plastid retention as complicating factors in bikont diversification.

Alternative Hypotheses and Cladograms

Classical Bikont Cladogram

The classical bikont posits the of the eukaryotic between the groups Unikonts and Bikonts, with Bikonts subsequently branching into three major lineages: Cabozoa, , and Corticata. This structure reflects the traditional view of bikont during the 2010–2015 period, emphasizing shared synapomorphies such as the presence of two cilia in ancestral forms and fused pairs like dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate . Supporting evidence derives from multigene phylogenetic analyses that aimed to recover the Unikont-Bikont bipartition. Major nodes, such as the bikont crown and its primary branches, exhibit varying support in maximum likelihood reconstructions. These analyses underscore the evolutionary coherence of Bikonts as a encompassing diverse protozoan and multicellular lineages. A text-based outline of the cladogram illustrates the hierarchical relationships as follows:

Eukaryota ├── Unikonts (e.g., [Opisthokonts](/page/Opisthokont), [Amoebozoa](/page/Amoebozoa)) └── Bikonts ├── Cabozoa (e.g., [Excavata](/page/Excavata), including diplomonads and parabasalids) ├── [Rhizaria](/page/Rhizaria) (e.g., cercozoans, foraminiferans, radiolarians) └── Corticata ├── [Archaeplastida](/page/Archaeplastida) (e.g., red, green, and glaucophyte algae) └── Chromalveolata (e.g., Stramenopiles, [Alveolates](/page/Alveolate); note: later variants group [Rhizaria](/page/Rhizaria) with Stramenopiles and [Alveolates](/page/Alveolate) as SAR, positioning it within or sister to Corticata)

Eukaryota ├── Unikonts (e.g., [Opisthokonts](/page/Opisthokont), [Amoebozoa](/page/Amoebozoa)) └── Bikonts ├── Cabozoa (e.g., [Excavata](/page/Excavata), including diplomonads and parabasalids) ├── [Rhizaria](/page/Rhizaria) (e.g., cercozoans, foraminiferans, radiolarians) └── Corticata ├── [Archaeplastida](/page/Archaeplastida) (e.g., red, green, and glaucophyte algae) └── Chromalveolata (e.g., Stramenopiles, [Alveolates](/page/Alveolate); note: later variants group [Rhizaria](/page/Rhizaria) with Stramenopiles and [Alveolates](/page/Alveolate) as SAR, positioning it within or sister to Corticata)

Within Corticata, emerges as sister to Chromalveolata, a grouping supported by shared cortical features and phylogenetic signal from concatenated protein sequences. This configuration highlights the diversification of photosynthetic and heterotrophic lineages from a common bikont .

Contemporary Phylogenetic Models

Contemporary phylogenetic models have increasingly challenged the classical bikont by incorporating advanced phylogenomic techniques and broader sampling, often reconfiguring the eukaryotic root and rendering traditional bikont groupings paraphyletic or polyphyletic. These models emphasize the integration of bacterial transfers and sophisticated methods to resolve deep divergences, diverging from the fixed structure of earlier cladograms that posited a monophyletic Bikonta . The Opimoda–Diphoda model, proposed in , represents a seminal reconfiguration of eukaryotic phylogeny based on the analysis of bacterial proteins transferred to the eukaryotic ancestor. This model places the root of the eukaryotic tree between two primary clades: Opimoda, which encompasses (including Opisthokonta) and a reconfigured , and Diphoda, which aligns closely with the traditional Bikonta supergroup. Under this framework, Bikonts are identified as the Diphoda clade, characterized by shared innovations such as diphthamide synthesis pathways, but the rooting implies that certain lineages previously considered basal to Bikonta are now positioned within Opimoda, thus altering interpretations of early eukaryotic evolution. The model's robustness was supported by concatenated and coalescent-based analyses of up to 108 universal eukaryotic genes across 23 diverse taxa, highlighting a single root not confounded by phylogenetic artifacts. More recent excavations of the eukaryotic root, as explored in 2024 preprints, suggest an excavate-anchored phylogeny that further undermines bikont . Utilizing state-of-the-art phylogenetic models on extensive datasets, these studies position (including groups like jakobids and diplonemids) as the earliest-branching eukaryotic lineage, with the root lying between and a comprising , , and other supergroups. This excavate-rooted tree renders traditional Bikonta paraphyletic, as excavates—often central to bikont proposals—are separated from other purported bikont lineages like and Alveolata, which cluster within later branches. The analyses employed comprehensive phylogenomic pipelines on hundreds of genes from over 200 taxa, incorporating mixture models to account for site-heterogeneous evolution and long-branch attraction, providing a framework that prioritizes excavate ancestry for key eukaryotic innovations. Gene tree parsimony (GTP) approaches have also contributed to contemporary debates, particularly through a 2022 study analyzing 2,786 families across 158 eukaryotic lineages. This method reconciles individual gene trees with species trees to minimize duplication and loss events, placing the eukaryotic root between Opisthokonta and all other lineages, thereby supporting the unity of Bikonta (all non-Opisthokonta eukaryotes) as monophyletic while challenging the traditional Unikonta by aligning with Bikonta. The GTP framework outperformed traditional concatenation methods in handling incomplete lineage sorting and , with results validated across multiple reconciliation algorithms and subsets. As of 2025, further advances in phylogenomics, such as the EukPhylo v1.0 toolkit, have refined these estimates, recovering established clades and reinforcing support for excavate-rooted or Opisthokonta-basal models that continue to question bikont .

Criticisms and Current Consensus

Challenges to the Hypothesis

One major challenge to the of Bikonts arises from evidence suggesting , particularly involving , where long-branch attraction (LBA) artifacts in phylogenetic reconstructions often pull these taxa toward the base of the eukaryotic tree. Analyses of rare genomic changes (RGCs), such as specific insertions or fusions, indicate that may affiliate more closely with Unikonts than with other proposed Bikont groups like Plantae, contradicting the expected monophyletic clustering. This 2008 study, which examined RGCs across eukaryotic supergroups, found no support for Bikont and instead highlighted mixed affinities, attributing the basal positioning of to LBA rather than true evolutionary relationships. Further inconsistencies in proposed synapomorphies undermine the Bikont hypothesis, notably the dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate (DHFR-TS) gene fusion, originally posited as a derived marker uniting Bikonts. While present in many Bikont lineages such as and , this fusion is absent or variably distributed in some groups sometimes included in expanded Bikont proposals, like certain Apusozoa, where genomic data show separate DHFR and TS genes rather than the expected fusion. A 2006 phylogenomic of Apusomonads revealed a lack of robust independent support for the DHFR-TS fusion defining a cohesive Bikont , suggesting it may have arisen independently or been lost in peripheral members. Additionally, morphological synapomorphies, such as the anteriorly directed pair of flagella, are complicated by secondary losses in numerous lineages; for instance, centrohelid heliozoans, classified as Bikonts, evolved from ancestors through ciliary loss, resulting in amoeboid forms that obscure ancestral traits. Rate heterogeneity across Bikont subgroups also poses significant obstacles to phylogenetic resolution, as accelerated evolutionary rates in certain lineages distort tree topologies. Rhizarians and alveolates, key components of Bikonts, exhibit notably fast substitution rates in multigene datasets, leading to LBA artifacts that artificially cluster them with distant groups or pull them away from closer relatives. A 2006 multigene study of unicellular Bikonts demonstrated that this rate acceleration in rhizarian and alveolate phyla likely contributes to inconsistent signals in eukaryotic phylogenies, complicating efforts to confirm monophyly and suggesting rapid early diversification masked true relationships.

Recent Advances in Eukaryotic Phylogeny

Recent phylogenomic studies from 2022 to 2025 have significantly advanced the understanding of eukaryotic deep phylogeny, particularly through large-scale analyses that support a root between Opisthokonta (including animals, fungi, and their relatives) and all other eukaryotes. A key 2022 study utilizing gene tree parsimony on 2,786 gene families across 158 diverse eukaryotic lineages provided robust evidence for this bipartition, resolving long-standing ambiguities in the tree's base and emphasizing the need for reconciliation methods to account for and loss events. These analyses highlight the diversity within , a major bikont subgroup, with a 2024 preprint demonstrating excavate-like features in the last eukaryotic common ancestor through comprehensive rooting strategies involving thousands of orthologs, suggesting early divergence and ancestral traits like ventral feeding grooves. This rooting has implications for the bikont concept, shifting interpretations toward greater resolution of ancient polytomies while portraying Bikonta more as an than a strict in some models. For instance, the integration of excavate ancestry challenges by positioning near the base, with subsequent radiations leading to paraphyletic arrangements among archaeplastids and other groups. Additionally, estimates place the primary cyanobacterial endosymbiosis, foundational to photosynthetic bikont lineages like , around 1.5 billion years ago, providing temporal context for the diversification of oxygen-producing eukaryotes. Ongoing debates center on incorporating uncultured s through environmental and , which have revealed hidden diversity and refined supergroup boundaries. A 2025 global metagenomic survey uncovered uneven distributions across ecosystems, enhancing sampling of rare lineages and aiding placement of protists with uncertain phylogenetic affiliations (PUPAs) via hundreds of marker genes. This approach has specifically refined the SAR (Stramenopiles, , ) supergroup by clarifying positions like Telonemia's debated affinity and strengthened through bridges like the CAM clade linking , , and Microheliella to . Such integrations continue to test alternative models, like those emphasizing expansions, but underscore a consensus on Bikonta's utility as a descriptive framework despite internal complexities.

References

  1. https://www.microbiologyresearch.org/content/journal/ijsem/10.1099/00207713-52-2-297
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2660946/
  3. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1071196
  4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17174576/
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982214000694
  6. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1420657112
  7. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.09.04.611237v1
  8. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-15372-7
  9. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unikont
  10. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12098695/
  11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x
  12. https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-52-2-297
  13. https://megasun.bch.umontreal.ca/protists/cafe/ultrastructure.html
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959437X16300557
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3483872/
  16. https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3732/ajb.91.10.1481
  17. https://doi.org/10.1128/mr.57.4.953-994.1993
  18. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11276813_Rooting_the_Eukaryote_Tree_by_Using_a_Derived_Gene_Fusion
  19. http://www.cladocera.de/protozoa/cavalier-smith_2004_prs.pdf
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2880060/
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S093247391300032X
  22. https://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~parfrey/parfrey_lab/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Adl2012.jeu644.pdf
  23. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/31/4/832/1101378
  24. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/59/6/471/239253
  25. https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/6/10/2709/611139
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5728131/
  27. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/23/3/615/1110319
  28. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8408015/
  29. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-42146-5
  30. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/23/10/1922/1096963
  31. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11931142/
  32. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12956967/
  33. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0604985103
  34. https://rupress.org/jcb/article/194/4/513/54654/The-evolution-of-the-cytoskeletonThe-evolution-of
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397445301_Deep-branching_eukaryotes_and_early_events_in_protist_evolution
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5756292/
  37. https://www3.botany.ubc.ca/keeling/PDF/09CAreview.pdf
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1574289/
  39. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16829542/
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790315002080
  41. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/27/7/1698/968468
  42. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0948
  43. https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/14/8/evac119/6649915
  44. https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/mbio.01770-25
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2817406/
  46. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/23/12/2455/973951
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10832275_Molecular_Phylogeny_of_Centrohelid_Heliozoa_a_Novel_Lineage_of_Bikont_Eukaryotes_That_Arose_by_Ciliary_Loss
  48. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-origin-of-plastids-14125758/
  49. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.03.26.645542v1
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12388492/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.