microbiology-archeobacteria and eubacteria
March 2, 2005 at 8:22 am #449anwarParticipant
Pleaz tell me h can we differentiate between archeobacteria and eubacteria
March 2, 2005 at 9:03 am #19964biostudent84Participant
Literally meaning “new bacteria” (eubacteria) and “old bacteria” (archaebacteria). Now two of the three domains of life (Archaea[bacteria], [Eu]Bacteria, and Eucaria or Eucaryotes).
The Archaebacteria were originally thought to be the first life on the planet, although this has since been proven false. They are most commonly known for their love of hostile enviornments, usually in high sulfuric, hot, or oxygen poor enviornments.
Eubacteria are the organisms students are more familiar with when the word “bacteria” is said. These are the bacteria we grow in cultures in the lab. The most well known of these is E. Coli
See: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Lif … n_page.htm for more information.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Tree_of_Lif … f_life.jpg also has a good graph of the three domains of life.
March 6, 2005 at 9:25 pm #20121
Did you know that 2/3 of the organisms on this planet consist of arhebacteria? The lie beeneth the ocean and produce methan gas, which accumulates over time. If all of the methan accumulated were to explode now, it wolud be bye-bye everything
I don’t know if this is of any use to you, but I found it very cool
March 7, 2005 at 7:18 pm #20161biostudent84Participant
Is this “2/3 of all organisms” counting number of species, population counts, or biomass?
March 7, 2005 at 9:59 pm #20183
“2/3 of the living substance consists of…” I guess that means biomass
I read it in a magazine called “Discover”. it’s relly cool
August 10, 2005 at 12:00 am #28197Joe_Participant
Does anyone think that Archaeobacteria can live in any other environments than where it is comonly found?
August 10, 2005 at 6:41 am #28203iri_blackParticipant
I think they are highly addapted to hostile environmets.
Maybe in millions years…. 🙂
August 10, 2005 at 4:00 pm #28224chemistry_freakoParticipant
yea…and those conditions can be rather difficult to replicate in the lab… 😯
August 10, 2005 at 8:25 pm #28241
When the environment got rougher, some bacteria evolved into eubacteria and were able to populate the earth, some evolved into archea and retreeted to places where the environment was the same as that of the primitive earth. So no, it can not survive anywhere
July 12, 2011 at 8:08 am #105551bellyjellyParticipant
There are two kinds of microorganisms that are divided into prokaryotes and those include bacteria and archaea. But not all bacteria and archaea belong to prokaryotes. Complicated subject, isn’t it? Here is more information on the differences between these two microorganisms.
Both bacteria and archaea have different Ribosomal RNAs (rRNA). Archea have three RNA polymerases like eukaryotes, but bacteria have only one. Archaea have cell walls that lack peptidoglycan and have membranes that enclose lipids with hydrocarbons rather than fatty acids (not a bilayer). These lipids in the membranes of archaea are unique and contain ether linkages between the glycerol backbones rather than ester linkages. Archaea resembles eukaryotes more than bacteria. Their ribosomes work more like eukaryotic ribosomes than bacterial ribosomes.
These two microorganisms also differ in genetic and biochemical ways. Only within the last couple of decades, archaea were recognized as a distinct domain of life. They are extremophiles, meaning they thrive in physically or geochemically extreme conditions. They have similar ecological roles as bacteria. Both of these organisms react to various antibiotics in a different way.
Archaea: cell membrane contains ether linkages; cell wall lacks peptidoglycan; genes and enzymes behave more like Eukaryotes; have three RNA polymerases like eukaryotes; and extremophiles
Bacteria: cell membrane contains ester bonds; cell wall made of peptidoglycan; have only one RNA polymerase; react to antibiotics in a different way than archea do.
November 3, 2011 at 11:53 am #107589JackBeanParticipantquote bellyjelly:
can you share, which bacteria are not prokaryotes?
November 8, 2011 at 7:15 am #107821aptitudeParticipant
Contrary to what others are posting on this thread, I would actually argue that humans are not more closely related to bacteria, but rather equally related to both archea and bacteria. According to the ring of life hypothesis, early evolutionary history was marked by extensive horizontal gene transfer, and the fact that archeans and eukaryotes have some similarities (i.e., Crenarcheota has introns and histones) leads to the hypothesis that the nucleus may have originated endosymbiotically from an ancestral archean.
Just a small bit of evolutionary background :).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.