Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRobbins, Robert J.
dc.contributor.authorKrishtalka, Leonard
dc.contributor.authorWooley, John C.
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-28T21:26:35Z
dc.date.available2016-10-28T21:26:35Z
dc.date.issued2015-09-09
dc.identifier.citationRobbins, R. J., Krishtalka, L., & Wooley, J. C. (2016). Advances in biodiversity: metagenomics and the unveiling of biological dark matter. Standards in Genomic Sciences, 11(1), 69. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-016-0180-8en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/21761
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Efforts to harmonize genomic data standards used by the biodiversity and metagenomic research communities have shown that prokaryotic data cannot be understood or represented in a traditional, classical biological context for conceptual reasons, not technical ones. RESULTS: Biology, like physics, has a fundamental duality—the classical macroscale eukaryotic realm vs. the quantum microscale microbial realm—with the two realms differing profoundly, and counter-intuitively, from one another. Just as classical physics is emergent from and cannot explain the microscale realm of quantum physics, so classical biology is emergent from and cannot explain the microscale realm of prokaryotic life. Classical biology describes the familiar, macroscale realm of multi-cellular eukaryotic organisms, which constitute a highly derived and constrained evolutionary subset of the biosphere, unrepresentative of the vast, mostly unseen, microbial world of prokaryotic life that comprises at least half of the planet’s biomass and most of its genetic diversity. The two realms occupy fundamentally different mega-niches: eukaryotes interact primarily mechanically with the environment, prokaryotes primarily physiologically. Further, many foundational tenets of classical biology simply do not apply to prokaryotic biology. CONCLUSION: Classical genetics one held that genes, arranged on chromosomes like beads on a string, were the fundamental units of mutation, recombination, and heredity. Then, molecular analysis showed that there were no fundamental units, no beads, no string. Similarly, classical biology asserts that individual organisms and species are fundamental units of ecology, evolution, and biodiversity, composing an evolutionary history of objectively real, lineage-defined groups in a single-rooted tree of life. Now, metagenomic tools are forcing a recognition that there are no completely objective individuals, no unique lineages, and no one true tree. The newly revealed biosphere of microbial dark matter cannot be understood merely by extending the concepts and methods of eukaryotic macrobiology. The unveiling of biological dark matter is allowing us to see, for the first time, the diversity of the entire biosphere and, to paraphrase Darwin, is providing a new view of life. Advancing and understanding that view will require major revisions to some of the most fundamental concepts and theories in biology.en_US
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_US
dc.rightsCopyright © The Author(s). 2016. Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0
dc.subjectProkaryotesen_US
dc.subjectMulti-cellular eukaryotesen_US
dc.subjectMetagenomicsen_US
dc.subjectBiodiversityen_US
dc.subjectTree of lifeen_US
dc.titleAdvances in biodiversity: metagenomics and the unveiling of biological dark matteren_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
kusw.kuauthorKrishtalka, Leonard
kusw.kudepartmentBiodiversity Instituteen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s40793-016-0180-8en_US
kusw.oaversionScholarly/refereed, publisher versionen_US
kusw.oapolicyThis item meets KU Open Access policy criteria.en_US
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Copyright © The Author(s). 2016.  
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as: Copyright © The Author(s). 2016. Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.