THE SYMBIOTIC BIRTH AND SPREAD OF PLASTIDS: HOW MANY TIMES AND WHODUNIT?

I discuss the evidence for a single origin of primary plastids in the context of a paper in this issue challenging this view, and I review recent evidence concerning the number of secondary plastid endosymbioses and the controversy over whether the relic plastid of apicomplexans is of red or green algal origin. A broad consensus has developed that the plastids of green algae, red algae, and glaucophytes arose from the same primary, cyanobacterial endosymbiosis. Although the analyses in this issue by Stiller and colleagues firmly undermine one of many sources of data, gene content similarities among plastid genomes used to argue for a monophyletic origin of primary plastids, the overall evidence still clearly favors monophyly. Nonetheless, this issue should not be considered settled and new data should be sought from better sampling of cyanobacteria and glaucophytes, from sequenced nuclear genomes, and from careful analysis of such key features as the plastid import apparatus. With respect to the number of secondary plastid symbioses, it is completely unclear as to whether the secondary plastids of euglenophytes and chlorarachniophytes arose by the same or two different algal endosymbioses. Recent analyses of certain plastid and nuclear genes support the chromalveolate hypothesis of Cavalier‐Smith, namely, that the plastids of heterokonts, haptophytes, cryptophytes, dinoflagellates, and apicomplexans all arose from a common endosymbiosis involving a red alga. However, another recent paper presents intriguing conflicting data on this score for one of these groups—apicomplexans—arguing instead that they acquired their plastids from green algae.