<?phpxml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>
<channel>
<title>The Meetingpoint at Slavyanski.net / saucebit9 / All</title>
<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020</link>
<description>Your Source for Social News and Networking</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:18:30 +0000</pubDate>
<language>en</language>
<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Archaebacteria but instead was a chimera formed by fusion and integration]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=archaebacteria-but-instead-was-a-chimera-formed-by-fusion-and-integration-4</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=archaebacteria-but-instead-was-a-chimera-formed-by-fusion-and-integration-4"><![CDATA[Archaebacteria but instead was a chimera formed by fusion and integration]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Archaebacteria but instead was a chimera formed by fusion and integration of the genomes of an archaebacterium and a gram-negative bacterium. The available data indicate that the primary fusion event that gave rise to the ancestral eukaryotic cell was unique and that it was very probably distinct from (and preceded) the one that gave rise to mitochondria and hydrogenosomes. These results provide e ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:18:30 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category></category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=archaebacteria-but-instead-was-a-chimera-formed-by-fusion-and-integration-4</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Karyotic cell nucleus and endomembrane system as per the chimeric model.]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=karyotic-cell-nucleus-and-endomembrane-system-as-per-the-chimeric-model--3</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=karyotic-cell-nucleus-and-endomembrane-system-as-per-the-chimeric-model--3"><![CDATA[Karyotic cell nucleus and endomembrane system as per the chimeric model.]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Karyotic cell nucleus and endomembrane system as per the chimeric model. The key event in the origin of the eukaryotic cell is postulated to be a symbiotic association between a gram-negative eubacterium (from the proteobacteria-1 group) and likely an "eocyte" archaebacterium. This association led to the loss of the outer membrane from the gram-negative bacterium (not shown). As the membrane of th ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2020 10:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category></category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=karyotic-cell-nucleus-and-endomembrane-system-as-per-the-chimeric-model--3</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Oteobacteria). The evolutionary history deduced here based on signature sequences in]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=oteobacteria-the-evolutionary-history-deduced-here-based-on-signature-sequences-in-6</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=oteobacteria-the-evolutionary-history-deduced-here-based-on-signature-sequences-in-6"><![CDATA[Oteobacteria). The evolutionary history deduced here based on signature sequences in]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Oteobacteria). The evolutionary history deduced here based on signature sequences in some of the most highly conserved protein sequences in the biota is in contrast to the rather confusing picture that seems to be emerging from other analyses of the completed bacterial genomes (21, 50, 68, 130, 143, 144, 182, 191, 255). However, as has been pointed out (50, 143, 144, 182), of the large number of s ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:57:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category>News</category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=oteobacteria-the-evolutionary-history-deduced-here-based-on-signature-sequences-in-6</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Oteobacteria). The evolutionary history deduced here based on signature sequences in]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=oteobacteria-the-evolutionary-history-deduced-here-based-on-signature-sequences-in-6</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=oteobacteria-the-evolutionary-history-deduced-here-based-on-signature-sequences-in-6"><![CDATA[Oteobacteria). The evolutionary history deduced here based on signature sequences in]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Oteobacteria). The evolutionary history deduced here based on signature sequences in some of the most highly conserved protein sequences in the biota is in contrast to the rather confusing picture that seems to be emerging from other analyses of the completed bacterial genomes (21, 50, 68, 130, 143, 144, 182, 191, 255). However, as has been pointed out (50, 143, 144, 182), of the large number of s ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2020 09:56:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category>News</category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=oteobacteria-the-evolutionary-history-deduced-here-based-on-signature-sequences-in-6</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Archaebacteria but instead was a chimera formed by fusion and integration]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=archaebacteria-but-instead-was-a-chimera-formed-by-fusion-and-integration-5</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=archaebacteria-but-instead-was-a-chimera-formed-by-fusion-and-integration-5"><![CDATA[Archaebacteria but instead was a chimera formed by fusion and integration]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Archaebacteria but instead was a chimera formed by fusion and integration of the genomes of an archaebacterium and a gram-negative bacterium. The available data indicate that the primary fusion event that gave rise to the ancestral eukaryotic cell was unique and that it was very probably distinct from (and preceded) the one that gave rise to mitochondria and hydrogenosomes. These results provide e ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:56:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category>News</category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=archaebacteria-but-instead-was-a-chimera-formed-by-fusion-and-integration-5</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Archaebacteria but instead was a chimera formed by fusion and integration]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=archaebacteria-but-instead-was-a-chimera-formed-by-fusion-and-integration-9</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=archaebacteria-but-instead-was-a-chimera-formed-by-fusion-and-integration-9"><![CDATA[Archaebacteria but instead was a chimera formed by fusion and integration]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Archaebacteria but instead was a chimera formed by fusion and integration of the genomes of an archaebacterium and a gram-negative bacterium. The available data indicate that the primary fusion event that gave rise to the ancestral eukaryotic cell was unique and that it was very probably distinct from (and preceded) the one that gave rise to mitochondria and hydrogenosomes. These results provide e ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:16:32 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category></category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=archaebacteria-but-instead-was-a-chimera-formed-by-fusion-and-integration-9</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Distinction within prokaryotes, formingthe primary taxonomic division within them, which is]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=distinction-within-prokaryotes-formingthe-primary-taxonomic-division-within-them-which-is-9</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=distinction-within-prokaryotes-formingthe-primary-taxonomic-division-within-them-which-is-9"><![CDATA[Distinction within prokaryotes, formingthe primary taxonomic division within them, which is]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Distinction within prokaryotes, formingthe primary taxonomic division within them, which is supported by both molecular sequence data and morphological features, is of the monoderm prokaryotes (Monodermata, i.e., those bounded by a single cell membrane) and the diderm prokaryotes (Didermata, i.e., those bounded by inner and outer cell membranes defining a periplasmic compartment). In that sense, b ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2020 08:52:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category>News</category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=distinction-within-prokaryotes-formingthe-primary-taxonomic-division-within-them-which-is-9</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Ents was preceded or accompanied by duplication of the genes for]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=ents-was-preceded-or-accompanied-by-duplication-of-the-genes-for-1</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=ents-was-preceded-or-accompanied-by-duplication-of-the-genes-for-1"><![CDATA[Ents was preceded or accompanied by duplication of the genes for]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Ents was preceded or accompanied by duplication of the genes for the chaperone proteins (Hsp70, Hsp90, DnaJ, etc.), which are necessary for protein transport and communication within the compartments. The transfer of the genome from the gram-negative eubacterium to the newly formed nucleus and an assortment and integration of genes from the two partners led to the formation of the ancestral eukary ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2020 07:59:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category></category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=ents-was-preceded-or-accompanied-by-duplication-of-the-genes-for-1</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Of a protein altered in mutants resistant to microtubule inhibitors as]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=of-a-protein-altered-in-mutants-resistant-to-microtubule-inhibitors-as-9</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=of-a-protein-altered-in-mutants-resistant-to-microtubule-inhibitors-as-9"><![CDATA[Of a protein altered in mutants resistant to microtubule inhibitors as]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Of a protein altered in mutants resistant to microtubule inhibitors as a member of the major heat shock protein (hsp70) family. Mol. Cell. Biol. 10:5160?5165. 3. Alberts, B., D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, and J. D. Watson. 1994. Molecular biology of the cell. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York, N.Y. 4. Allsopp, A. 1969. Phylogenetic relationships of the procaryota and the origin of the e ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2020 14:53:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category></category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=of-a-protein-altered-in-mutants-resistant-to-microtubule-inhibitors-as-9</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Archaebacteria but instead was a chimera formed by fusion and integration]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=archaebacteria-but-instead-was-a-chimera-formed-by-fusion-and-integration-1</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=archaebacteria-but-instead-was-a-chimera-formed-by-fusion-and-integration-1"><![CDATA[Archaebacteria but instead was a chimera formed by fusion and integration]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Archaebacteria but instead was a chimera formed by fusion and integration of the genomes of an archaebacterium and a gram-negative bacterium. The available data indicate that the primary fusion event that gave rise to the ancestral eukaryotic cell was unique and that it was very probably distinct from (and preceded) the one that gave rise to mitochondria and hydrogenosomes. These results provide e ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2020 14:11:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category>News</category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=archaebacteria-but-instead-was-a-chimera-formed-by-fusion-and-integration-1</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Karyotic cell nucleus and endomembrane system as per the chimeric model.]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=karyotic-cell-nucleus-and-endomembrane-system-as-per-the-chimeric-model--2</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=karyotic-cell-nucleus-and-endomembrane-system-as-per-the-chimeric-model--2"><![CDATA[Karyotic cell nucleus and endomembrane system as per the chimeric model.]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Karyotic cell nucleus and endomembrane system as per the chimeric model. The key event in the origin of the eukaryotic cell is postulated to be a symbiotic association between a gram-negative eubacterium (from the proteobacteria-1 group) and likely an "eocyte" archaebacterium. This association led to the loss of the outer membrane from the gram-negative bacterium (not shown). As the membrane of th ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2020 18:56:23 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category></category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=karyotic-cell-nucleus-and-endomembrane-system-as-per-the-chimeric-model--2</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Distinction within prokaryotes, formingthe primary taxonomic division within them, which is]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=distinction-within-prokaryotes-formingthe-primary-taxonomic-division-within-them-which-is-9</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=distinction-within-prokaryotes-formingthe-primary-taxonomic-division-within-them-which-is-9"><![CDATA[Distinction within prokaryotes, formingthe primary taxonomic division within them, which is]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Distinction within prokaryotes, formingthe primary taxonomic division within them, which is supported by both molecular sequence data and morphological features, is of the monoderm prokaryotes (Monodermata, i.e., those bounded by a single cell membrane) and the diderm prokaryotes (Didermata, i.e., those bounded by inner and outer cell membranes defining a periplasmic compartment). In that sense, b ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2020 06:15:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category>News</category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=distinction-within-prokaryotes-formingthe-primary-taxonomic-division-within-them-which-is-9</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Oteobacteria). The evolutionary history deduced here based on signature sequences in]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=oteobacteria-the-evolutionary-history-deduced-here-based-on-signature-sequences-in-1</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=oteobacteria-the-evolutionary-history-deduced-here-based-on-signature-sequences-in-1"><![CDATA[Oteobacteria). The evolutionary history deduced here based on signature sequences in]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Oteobacteria). The evolutionary history deduced here based on signature sequences in some of the most highly conserved protein sequences in the biota is in contrast to the rather confusing picture that seems to be emerging from other analyses of the completed bacterial genomes (21, 50, 68, 130, 143, 144, 182, 191, 255). However, as has been pointed out (50, 143, 144, 182), of the large number of s ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2020 07:47:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category>News</category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=oteobacteria-the-evolutionary-history-deduced-here-based-on-signature-sequences-in-1</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Oteobacteria). The evolutionary history deduced here based on signature sequences in]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=oteobacteria-the-evolutionary-history-deduced-here-based-on-signature-sequences-in-9</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=oteobacteria-the-evolutionary-history-deduced-here-based-on-signature-sequences-in-9"><![CDATA[Oteobacteria). The evolutionary history deduced here based on signature sequences in]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Oteobacteria). The evolutionary history deduced here based on signature sequences in some of the most highly conserved protein sequences in the biota is in contrast to the rather confusing picture that seems to be emerging from other analyses of the completed bacterial genomes (21, 50, 68, 130, 143, 144, 182, 191, 255). However, as has been pointed out (50, 143, 144, 182), of the large number of s ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2020 07:46:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category>News</category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=oteobacteria-the-evolutionary-history-deduced-here-based-on-signature-sequences-in-9</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Of a protein altered in mutants resistant to microtubule inhibitors as]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=of-a-protein-altered-in-mutants-resistant-to-microtubule-inhibitors-as-1</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=of-a-protein-altered-in-mutants-resistant-to-microtubule-inhibitors-as-1"><![CDATA[Of a protein altered in mutants resistant to microtubule inhibitors as]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Of a protein altered in mutants resistant to microtubule inhibitors as a member of the major heat shock protein (hsp70) family. Mol. Cell. Biol. 10:5160?5165. 3. Alberts, B., D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, and J. D. Watson. 1994. Molecular biology of the cell. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York, N.Y. 4. Allsopp, A. 1969. Phylogenetic relationships of the procaryota and the origin of the e ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2020 05:30:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category></category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=of-a-protein-altered-in-mutants-resistant-to-microtubule-inhibitors-as-1</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[Distinction within prokaryotes, formingthe primary taxonomic division within them, which is]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=distinction-within-prokaryotes-formingthe-primary-taxonomic-division-within-them-which-is-4</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=distinction-within-prokaryotes-formingthe-primary-taxonomic-division-within-them-which-is-4"><![CDATA[Distinction within prokaryotes, formingthe primary taxonomic division within them, which is]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[Distinction within prokaryotes, formingthe primary taxonomic division within them, which is supported by both molecular sequence data and morphological features, is of the monoderm prokaryotes (Monodermata, i.e., those bounded by a single cell membrane) and the diderm prokaryotes (Didermata, i.e., those bounded by inner and outer cell membranes defining a periplasmic compartment). In that sense, b ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2020 19:22:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category>News</category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=distinction-within-prokaryotes-formingthe-primary-taxonomic-division-within-them-which-is-4</guid>
</item>

<item>
	<title><![CDATA[E signature sequences in different proteins support the division of Archaebacteria]]></title>
	<link>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=e-signature-sequences-in-different-proteins-support-the-division-of-archaebacteria-9</link>
	<source url="https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=e-signature-sequences-in-different-proteins-support-the-division-of-archaebacteria-9"><![CDATA[E signature sequences in different proteins support the division of Archaebacteria]]></source>
	<description><![CDATA[E signature sequences in different proteins support the division of Archaebacteria into two distinct groups (Euryarchaeota and Crenarchaeota) and of gram-positive bacteria into at least two groups, corresponding to the low-G C and high-G C species, of which the high-G C group is specifically related to the diderm prokaryotes. The DeinococcusThermus group of species appears to be intermediate in th ]]></description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2020 04:19:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<author>saucebit9</author>
	<category></category>
	<votes>1</votes>
	<guid>https://slavyanski.net/sb2020/story.php?title=e-signature-sequences-in-different-proteins-support-the-division-of-archaebacteria-9</guid>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>
