# The dark side of the ribosome life cycle

Sébastien Ferreira-Cerca

► To cite this version:

Sébastien Ferreira-Cerca. The dark side of the ribosome life cycle. RNA Biology, 2022, 19 (1), pp.1045-1049. 10.1080/15476286.2022.2121421. hal-04064833

HAL Id: hal-04064833

https://hal.science/hal-04064833

Submitted on 1 Feb 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# The dark side of the ribosome life cycle

Sébastien Ferreira-Cerca

**To cite this article:** Sébastien Ferreira-Cerca (2022) The dark side of the ribosome life cycle, RNA Biology, 19:1, 1045-1049, DOI: 10.1080/15476286.2022.2121421

**To link to this article:** https://doi.org/10.1080/15476286.2022.2121421

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Published online: 09 Sep 2022.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Submit your article to this journal

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Article views: 1087

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

View related articles

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

View Crossmark data

CrossMark

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
# The dark side of the ribosome life cycle

Sébastien Ferreira-Cerca

To cite this article: Sébastien Ferreira-Cerca (2022) The dark side of the ribosome life cycle, RNA Biology, 19:1, 1045-1049, DOI: 10.1080/15476286.2022.2121421

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15476286.2022.2121421

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Published online: 09 Sep 2022.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Submit your article to this journal

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Article views: 1087

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

View related articles

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

View Crossmark data

CrossMark

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

# The dark side of the ribosome life cycle

Sébastien Ferreira-Cerca

Regensburg Center for Biochemistry, Biochemistry III – Institute for Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

## ABSTRACT

Thanks to genetics, biochemistry, and structural biology many features of the ribosome's life cycles in models of bacteria, eukaryotes, and some organelles have been revealed to near-atomic details. Collectively, these studies have provided a very detailed understanding of what are now well-established prototypes for ribosome biogenesis and function as viewed from a 'classical' model organisms perspective. However, very important challenges remain ahead to explore the functional and structural diversity of both ribosome biogenesis and function across the biological diversity on earth. Particularly, the 'third domain of life', the archaea, and also many non-model bacterial and eukaryotic organisms have been comparatively neglected. Importantly, characterizing these additional biological systems will not only offer a yet untapped window to enlighten the evolution of ribosome biogenesis and function but will also help to unravel fundamental principles of molecular adaptation of these central cellular processes.

## ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 28 June 2022
Revised 8 August 2022
Accepted 30 August 2022

## KEYWORDS

Ribosome; ribosome biogenesis; archaea; non-model organism; RNA

## 1. Lessons from ribosome biogenesis studies in model organisms

Ribosomes are universally conserved ribonucleoprotein complex carrying out the translation of mRNA into proteins. Despite a common general architecture and functional role within the cell, ribosome biogenesis and function show significant differences across the domains of life [1-3].

Among these differences is for example the set of conserved ribosomal constituents. The 33 universally conserved ribosomal (r-) proteins do not represent the full set of structural components forming the mature ribosomal subunits across the different domains of life [4]. In addition to these universally conserved core r-proteins, around 26 bacterial specific, or 34 archaeo-eukaryal specific r-proteins are known [2,4].

Another striking difference is that establishing a somewhat very similar functional entity requires much fewer ribosome biogenesis factors in bacteria than in eukaryotes. In the latter, a large expansion of the numbers of ribosome biogenesis factors facilitating ribosomal subunits maturation can be observed [2,5,6]. The molecular constraints or requirements that have emerged in eukaryotes to necessitate a remarkable complexification of the ribosomal subunit building process remain poorly understood to date.

Finally, translation initiation in model bacteria and eukaryotes is also divergent, as translation initiation in eukaryotes involved additional translation initiation factors [3].

Major differences are not only domain-specific, and some striking differences are also observed within the various domains of life. For example, the set of ribonucleases used for rRNA maturation in Gram-negative/-positive bacteria shows some variations. The RNase G/E family, which is

important for some processing steps of the small ribosomal subunit rRNA, is absent in B. subtilis where, in this context, RNase J1 fulfils a similar function [7-9]. Similarly, there are notable differences in the eukaryotic rRNA maturation pathways as observed in yeast or human cells [10]. Moreover, the order of assembly/disassembly and/or the timing of action of some ribosome biogenesis factors, like the dimethyl transferase Dim1, occur at distinct steps of the yeast/human ribosome biogenesis pathways [11-13]. Even more striking is the molecular diversity and adaptation that can be observed in obligate parasites like mycobacterium or microsporidia. In these cases, some ribosome biogenesis factors seem to be absent (whether they have been lost or evolutionary selected against is so far unknown) and new compensatory mechanisms might have been implemented [9,14-16].

It is not fully surprising that our current view of ribosome biogenesis and function as studied in classical model organisms remains somewhat biased and does not allow us yet to fully appreciate the diversity of ribosome biology. Accordingly, revealing common and specific principles of ribosome biogenesis and function remains a challenging task for the field but will certainly help to better understand the molecular dance required for the formation and function of ribosomal subunits.

## 2. Crossing new (old) frontiers: ribosome biogenesis and function in archaea

### The discovery of archaea: impact on ribosome biology

At the end of the 1970s, Woese and colleagues, using comparative 16S rRNA cataloguing, described a new group of

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

POINT OF VIEW

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

# The dark side of the ribosome life cycle

Sébastien Ferreira-Cerca

Regensburg Center for Biochemistry, Biochemistry III - Institute for Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

**ABSTRACT**

Thanks to genetics, biochemistry, and structural biology many features of the ribosome's life cycles in models of bacteria, eukaryotes, and some organelles have been revealed to near-atomic details. Collectively, these studies have provided a very detailed understanding of what are now well-established prototypes for ribosome biogenesis and function as viewed from a 'classical' model organisms perspective. However, very important challenges remain ahead to explore the functional and structural diversity of both ribosome biogenesis and function across the biological diversity on earth. Particularly, the 'third domain of life', the archaea, and also many non-model bacterial and eukaryotic organisms have been comparatively neglected. Importantly, characterizing these additional biological systems will not only offer a yet untapped window to enlighten the evolution of ribosome biogenesis and function but will also help to unravel fundamental principles of molecular adaptation of these central cellular processes.

**ARTICLE HISTORY**

Received 28 June 2022
Revised 8 August 2022
Accepted 30 August 2022

**KEYWORDS**

Ribosome; ribosome biogenesis; archaea; non-model organism; RNA

## 1. Lessons from ribosome biogenesis studies in model organisms

Ribosomes are universally conserved ribonucleoprotein complex carrying out the translation of mRNA into proteins. Despite a common general architecture and functional role within the cell, ribosome biogenesis and function show significant differences across the domains of life [1-3].

Among these differences is for example the set of conserved ribosomal constituents. The 33 universally conserved ribosomal (r-) proteins do not represent the full set of structural components forming the mature ribosomal subunits across the different domains of life [4]. In addition to these universally conserved core r-proteins, around 26 bacterial specific, or 34 archaeo-eukaryal specific r-proteins are known [2,4].

Another striking difference is that establishing a somewhat very similar functional entity requires much fewer ribosome biogenesis factors in bacteria than in eukaryotes. In the latter, a large expansion of the numbers of ribosome biogenesis factors facilitating ribosomal subunits maturation can be observed [2,5,6]. The molecular constraints or requirements that have emerged in eukaryotes to necessitate a remarkable complexification of the ribosomal subunit building process remain poorly understood to date.

Finally, translation initiation in model bacteria and eukaryotes is also divergent, as translation initiation in eukaryotes involved additional translation initiation factors [3].

Major differences are not only domain-specific, and some striking differences are also observed within the various domains of life. For example, the set of ribonucleases used for rRNA maturation in Gram-negative/-positive bacteria shows some variations. The RNase G/E family, which is

important for some processing steps of the small ribosomal subunit rRNA, is absent in *B. subtilis* where, in this context, RNase J1 fulfils a similar function [7-9]. Similarly, there are notable differences in the eukaryotic rRNA maturation pathways as observed in yeast or human cells [10]. Moreover, the order of assembly/disassembly and/or the timing of action of some ribosome biogenesis factors, like the dimethyl transferase Dim1, occur at distinct steps of the yeast/human ribosome biogenesis pathways [11-13]. Even more striking is the molecular diversity and adaptation that can be observed in obligate parasites like mycobacterium or microsporidia. In these cases, some ribosome biogenesis factors seem to be absent (whether they have been lost or evolutionary selected against is so far unknown) and new compensatory mechanisms might have been implemented [9,14-16].

It is not fully surprising that our current view of ribosome biogenesis and function as studied in classical model organisms remains somewhat biased and does not allow us yet to fully appreciate the diversity of ribosome biology. Accordingly, revealing common and specific principles of ribosome biogenesis and function remains a challenging task for the field but will certainly help to better understand the molecular dance required for the formation and function of ribosomal subunits.

## 2. Crossing new (old) frontiers: ribosome biogenesis and function in archaea

### The discovery of archaea: impact on ribosome biology

At the end of the 1970s, Woese and colleagues, using comparative 16S rRNA cataloguing, described a new group of

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

organisms, which is now known as the archaea, and proposed a third domain of life next to the bacteria and eukarya [17–21]. This seminal discovery and the basis of many subsequent phylogenetic analyses are therefore deeply connected to ribosome biology.

The archaeal discovery and the diversity of extremophile adaptations originally described in this domain of life have intrigued and attracted bold-minded scientists who wished to take advantage of their unusual biological properties [17,19]. For example, structural biologists have used archaeal proteins to determine molecular structures or reconstitute multi-subunit complexes that were albeit not easily accessible in other mesophilic organisms [22]. Accordingly, it is therefore not fully surprising that the first archaeal full genome sequencing of *M. jannaschii* was reported as early as 1996 [23], the same year of completion of the genome of one of the most commonly used eukaryotic model organisms, the yeast *S. cerevisiae* [24].

Archaea have contributed to our better understanding of the ribosome life cycle by helping to push forward the race to obtain the first high-resolution structure of ribosomal subunits. The pioneering work of James Lake's laboratory, who structurally classified ribosomal subunits from various organisms by electron microscopy analysis, provided initial insights into common and specific structural features of ribosomal subunits across the domains of life [25,26]. Importantly, these studies were also challenging the three domains of life model proposed by Woese and colleagues. In fact, based on these initial structural analyses and additional information showing that some archaeal ribosomal subunits were more related to their eukaryotic counterparts, James Lake proposed the 'Eocytes' hypothesis [19,25–28]. This hypothesis suggests that the eukaryotic lineage has directly emerged from within the archaeal phylum, thereby proposing an alternative two domains division of the tree of life [19,25–28]. Likewise, pioneering work by Ada Yonath on *Haloarcula marismortui* ribosomal subunits, and the follow-up studies by other ribosome crystallography heroes, like Tom Steitz, belong probably among the most prominent examples of the contribution of archaeal research to our general understanding of ribosome biology [29–31]. For example, ribosomal subunits isolated from the halophilic archaeon *H. marismortui* have provided early critical insights into 50S ribosomal subunits structure and information on the binding of major antibiotics to this ribosomal subunit [32,33].

However, these early impactful contributions from the archaeal world on ribosomal biology research (and beyond) have been difficult to sustain. In contrast to *S. cerevisiae*, for which a systematic gene deletion project has been achieved shortly after the genome sequencing was completed [34], no such project has been performed in archaea. This was essentially due to the lack of robust and easy genetic manipulation tools available at the time but also because of the lack of a critical mass of scientists and resources necessary to carry out such an ambitious project. Still, some ribosome researchers were bold enough to continue to lay further the ground to genetically harness archaeal ribosomes or biochemically study the principle of archaeal translation and ribosome synthesis. Among these, the laboratory of Tom Steitz was pioneering

rDNA deletion and the expression of mutant rDNA in Halophiles [32,35], while the laboratory of Paola Londei established *in vitro* reconstitution of translationally active archaeal ribosomal subunits from purified components [36–39] and additionally contributed with others, like the Dennis laboratory, to our initial understanding of ribosomal rRNA maturation in archaea [1,2,40–44]. Similarly, the early discovery of common rRNA modifications machineries, the s(no) RNPs, and the ability to reconstitute active archaeal s(no) RNPs complexes *in vitro* have been not only instrumental for our initial understanding of the biology of these complexes but remain important to reveal detailed mechanistic features of these conserved molecular machines [44–50].

Whereas the initial wave of deciphering the ribosome life cycle in archaea probably culminated with the atomic structure of the *H. marismortui* 50S ribosomal subunit [29,51], the scientific race to uncover the structural mysteries of the ribosome has probably required to focus on the most competitive model systems after all [52,53]. The difficulty to obtain high-resolution 3D structures of the 30S or 70S isolated from *H. marismortui* has probably been one of the major bottlenecks and led to a focus on other, more suitable, and 'easier' model organisms for further studies. Similarly, the key bottlenecks of limited genetic systems or easily accessible *in vitro* reconstitution systems have led to that only a small remaining core of archaeal aficionados kept analysing ribosome biogenesis and function in archaea, away from the last two decades of excitements seen around bacterial and eukaryotic ribosome biogenesis and function studies.

## 'The archaea renaissance'

In recent years, a general increasing interest in studying archaeal biology has accelerated. Among the motors driving forward this archaeal 'renaissance', one can mention, on the one hand, the general interest to decipher the biology of CRISPR-Cas systems that are widely distributed in archaea [54,55], and on the other hand, probably one of the main contributors, the impact of metagenomics in sampling the microbiological diversity across the globe and the biological consequences of these discoveries [56,57]. Indeed, metagenomics-based genome reconstruction has unravelled new groups of archaea, among these, the Asgard archaea superphylum whose discovery has revitalized the discussion on the tree of life topology and the origin of eukaryotic cells from an archaeal ancestor [57–62]. As such it has revived the 'Eocytes' hypothesis and the two domains of life scenario originally put forward by James Lake [25–28], including the passionate discussion around these key topics [58,59,63].

In addition to these landmark studies that may have potentially stimulated scientists to address questions in this domain of life, it is also important to mention the steady development of more refined and robust genetic tools [64–67] facilitating functional studies, but also general methodological advances in this field. Probably one of the most remarkable and popular achievements is the rapid development of live-cell imaging of archaeal cells and fluorescent tagging withstanding the harsh growth conditions required for most genetically tractable archaea available so far [68–70]. Finally, one should not underestimate the impact and
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

organisms, which is now known as the archaea, and proposed a third domain of life next to the bacteria and eukarya [17–21]. This seminal discovery and the basis of many subsequent phylogenetic analyses are therefore deeply connected to ribosome biology.

The archaeal discovery and the diversity of extremophile adaptations originally described in this domain of life have intrigued and attracted bold-minded scientists who wished to take advantage of their unusual biological properties [17,19]. For example, structural biologists have used archaeal proteins to determine molecular structures or reconstitute multi-subunit complexes that were albeit not easily accessible in other mesophilic organisms [22]. Accordingly, it is therefore not fully surprising that the first archaeal full genome sequencing of *M. jannaschii* was reported as early as 1996 [23], the same year of completion of the genome of one of the most commonly used eukaryotic model organisms, the yeast *S. cerevisiae* [24].

Archaea have contributed to our better understanding of the ribosome life cycle by helping to push forward the race to obtain the first high-resolution structure of ribosomal subunits. The pioneering work of James Lake's laboratory, who structurally classified ribosomal subunits from various organisms by electron microscopy analysis, provided initial insights into common and specific structural features of ribosomal subunits across the domains of life [25,26]. Importantly, these studies were also challenging the three domains of life model proposed by Woese and colleagues. In fact, based on these initial structural analyses and additional information showing that some archaeal ribosomal subunits were more related to their eukaryotic counterparts, James Lake proposed the 'Eocytes' hypothesis [19,25–28]. This hypothesis suggests that the eukaryotic lineage has directly emerged from within the archaeal phylum, thereby proposing an alternative two domains division of the tree of life [19,25–28]. Likewise, pioneering work by Ada Yonath on *Haloarcula marismortui* ribosomal subunits, and the follow-up studies by other ribosome crystallography heroes, like Tom Steitz, belong probably among the most prominent examples of the contribution of archaeal research to our general understanding of ribosome biology [29–31]. For example, ribosomal subunits isolated from the halophilic archaeon *H. marismortui* have provided early critical insights into 50S ribosomal subunits structure and information on the binding of major antibiotics to this ribosomal subunit [32,33].

However, these early impactful contributions from the archaeal world on ribosomal biology research (and beyond) have been difficult to sustain. In contrast to *S. cerevisiae*, for which a systematic gene deletion project has been achieved shortly after the genome sequencing was completed [34], no such project has been performed in archaea. This was essentially due to the lack of robust and easy genetic manipulation tools available at the time but also because of the lack of a critical mass of scientists and resources necessary to carry out such an ambitious project. Still, some ribosome researchers were bold enough to continue to lay further the ground to genetically harness archaeal ribosomes or biochemically study the principle of archaeal translation and ribosome synthesis. Among these, the laboratory of Tom Steitz was pioneering

rDNA deletion and the expression of mutant rDNA in Halophiles [32,35], while the laboratory of Paola Londei established *in vitro* reconstitution of translationally active archaeal ribosomal subunits from purified components [36–39] and additionally contributed with others, like the Dennis laboratory, to our initial understanding of ribosomal rRNA maturation in archaea [1,2,40–44]. Similarly, the early discovery of common rRNA modifications machineries, the s(no) RNPs, and the ability to reconstitute active archaeal s(no) RNPs complexes *in vitro* have been not only instrumental for our initial understanding of the biology of these complexes but remain important to reveal detailed mechanistic features of these conserved molecular machines [44–50].

Whereas the initial wave of deciphering the ribosome life cycle in archaea probably culminated with the atomic structure of the *H. marismortui* 50S ribosomal subunit [29,51], the scientific race to uncover the structural mysteries of the ribosome has probably required to focus on the most competitive model systems after all [52,53]. The difficulty to obtain high-resolution 3D structures of the 30S or 70S isolated from *H. marismortui* has probably been one of the major bottlenecks and led to a focus on other, more suitable, and 'easier' model organisms for further studies. Similarly, the key bottlenecks of limited genetic systems or easily accessible *in vitro* reconstitution systems have led to that only a small remaining core of archaeal aficionados kept analysing ribosome biogenesis and function in archaea, away from the last two decades of excitements seen around bacterial and eukaryotic ribosome biogenesis and function studies.

## 'The archaea renaissance'

In recent years, a general increasing interest in studying archaeal biology has accelerated. Among the motors driving forward this archaeal 'renaissance', one can mention, on the one hand, the general interest to decipher the biology of CRISPR-Cas systems that are widely distributed in archaea [54,55], and on the other hand, probably one of the main contributors, the impact of metagenomics in sampling the microbiological diversity across the globe and the biological consequences of these discoveries [56,57]. Indeed, metagenomics-based genome reconstruction has unravelled new groups of archaea, among these, the Asgard archaea superphylum whose discovery has revitalized the discussion on the tree of life topology and the origin of eukaryotic cells from an archaeal ancestor [57–62]. As such it has revived the 'Eocytes' hypothesis and the two domains of life scenario originally put forward by James Lake [25–28], including the passionate discussion around these key topics [58,59,63].

In addition to these landmark studies that may have potentially stimulated scientists to address questions in this domain of life, it is also important to mention the steady development of more refined and robust genetic tools [64–67] facilitating functional studies, but also general methodological advances in this field. Probably one of the most remarkable and popular achievements is the rapid development of live-cell imaging of archaeal cells and fluorescent tagging withstanding the harsh growth conditions required for most genetically tractable archaea available so far [68–70]. Finally, one should not underestimate the impact and
dedication of the vibrant and supportive community of archaeal
biologists around the world determined to push boundaries.

Ribosome biogenesis and function in archaea are still poorly
understood [1,2], but the possibility to answer key questions in
this domain of life has not been as easy then as it is becoming
now and will certainly be even easier in the coming years. The
gap of knowledge between archaeal and the prototype models of
bacterial and eukaryotic ribosome biogenesis and function
remains to some extent immense, but there is no doubt that
improved cultivation and genetic systems, functional analysis,
combined with cryo-EM and *in cellula* cryo-electron tomogra-
phy will help to close these gaps of knowledge and further reveal
the common and specific principles of ribosome biology.

**3. New world unleashed**

The impact of metagenomics and culturomics probably remains
still underestimated in many research areas [57,71,72].
However, it is very likely that these disciplines (will) have
a key impact on our future global understanding of the biolo-
gical diversity of the ribosome life cycles. Like the discovery of
the Asgard archaea and other major archaeal groups [57,73,74],
metagenomic analysis has also revealed an underappreciated
biological diversity in bacteria. The candidate phylum radiation
(CPR) represents a group of previously unknown organisms
that may contribute up to 25% of the overall known bacterial
diversity [73–75]. This sudden expansion of the bacterial and
archaeal world offers exciting and invaluable resources for any
ribosome biologist who wishes to explore the biological diver-
sity and adaptation of this central process.

For now, genome mining remains the easiest and sometimes
only way to access the mystery of many of these organisms and
has already revealed interesting features, like the observed pro-
pensity of introns within the 16S and 23S rRNA sequences as
well as the absence of various ribosomal proteins in CPR bac-
teria [75]. Access to these new organisms may remain limited
and will highly depends on our ability to cultivate them in
defined laboratory conditions and manipulate them genetically.
Nevertheless, the combination of single cells omics and the
incoming *in situ* high-resolution revolution driven by cryo-ET,
may enable us to crack open many of the little secrets of these
yet-to-be-cultivated non-model organisms.

The discovery potential is enormous and can be easily
illustrated by recent studies on ribosomal structures of para-
sitic ribosomal subunits that revealed how reductive evolution
may shape ribosome biogenesis and function. Moreover,
unleashing these ‘new worlds’ will also open a window
towards better understanding of major evolutionary con-
straints of ribosome synthesis and function [9,14,15,60,73,76].

**4. Outlook: the coming age of *in vivo* comparative ribosome biology**

Comparative biology is probably as old as biology itself and
remains a core discipline to understand phylogenetic relation-
ships, the evolutionary history, and the biological diversity of
key housekeeping processes.

The journey is a tedious but worthy one and our capacity
to explore biological diversity is getting wider and easier

every day; and yet many opportunities to follow new research
avenues remain way too often unseized [77,78]. This is due,
on the one hand, to scientific courage to follow new or
alternative paths but, on the other hand, it is essentially
impeded by multiple gatekeepers along the way, be it metho-
dological, political, or due to scientific conformism. All these
gatekeepers are sadly inhibiting the fundamentals of innovation:
curiosity and creativity, necessary to explore new frontiers.

In 2015, the same year where the Asgard archaea and CPR
were first reported [61,75], William Sullivan wrote, indepen-
dently of these discoveries, an essay entitled 'The Institute for
the Study of Non-Model Organisms and other fantasies' [79].
This idea might be explored in very different ways [80] but
should echo the need to build a sufficiently diverse scientific
critical mass and raise public and politic awareness in order to
hopefully leverage biological science to its full capacity.

**Acknowledgments**

I like to thank all the current and past lab members for stimulating
discussions and for being brave enough to follow somewhat unconven-
tional paths. I am particularly thankful to Michael Jüttner for critically
reading this manuscript and for his invaluable discussions and sugges-
tions. I wish to thank Marlene Oeffinger for the kind invitation to
contribute to this special issue and for letting me express a few personal
thoughts. I sincerely apologise to the authors whose work I could not cite
or discuss. Research in the SF-C laboratory is generously supported by
the German Research Foundation (DFG): individual research grant
[FE1622/2-1] and collaborative research centre SFB/CRC 960 grant
[SFB960-AP1, SFB960-B13] "RNP biogenesis: assembly of ribosomes
and non-ribosomal RNPs and control of their function".

**Disclosure statement**

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

**Funding**

This work was supported by the German Research Foundation
[409198929] and [185476941].

**Data availability statement**

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created
or analyzed in this study.

**ORCID**

Sébastien Ferreira-Cerca http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0522-843X

**References**

[1] Ferreira-Cerca S. Life and death of ribosomes in archaea. In: Clouet-d'Orval B, editor. RNA metabolism and gene expression in archaea. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 129-158.

[2] Londei P, Ferreira-Cerca S. Ribosome biogenesis in archaea. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:1476.

[3] Schmitt E, Coureux P-D, Kazan R, et al. Recent advances in
archaeal translation initiation. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:2259.

[4] Ban N, Beckmann R, Cate JH, et al. A new system for naming
ribosomal proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2014;24:165-169.
dedication of the vibrant and supportive community of archaeal
biologists around the world determined to push boundaries.

Ribosome biogenesis and function in archaea are still poorly
understood [1,2], but the possibility to answer key questions in
this domain of life has not been as easy then as it is becoming
now and will certainly be even easier in the coming years. The
gap of knowledge between archaeal and the prototype models of
bacterial and eukaryotic ribosome biogenesis and function
remains to some extent immense, but there is no doubt that
improved cultivation and genetic systems, functional analysis,
combined with cryo-EM and *in cellula* cryo-electron tomogra-
phy will help to close these gaps of knowledge and further reveal
the common and specific principles of ribosome biology.

3. New world unleashed

The impact of metagenomics and culturomics probably remains
still underestimated in many research areas [57,71,72].
However, it is very likely that these disciplines (will) have
a key impact on our future global understanding of the biolo-
gical diversity of the ribosome life cycles. Like the discovery of
the Asgard archaea and other major archaeal groups [57,73,74],
metagenomic analysis has also revealed an underappreciated
biological diversity in bacteria. The candidate phylum radiation
(CPR) represents a group of previously unknown organisms
that may contribute up to 25% of the overall known bacterial
diversity [73–75]. This sudden expansion of the bacterial and
archaeal world offers exciting and invaluable resources for any
ribosome biologist who wishes to explore the biological diver-
sity and adaptation of this central process.

For now, genome mining remains the easiest and sometimes
only way to access the mystery of many of these organisms and
has already revealed interesting features, like the observed pro-
pensity of introns within the 16S and 23S rRNA sequences as
well as the absence of various ribosomal proteins in CPR bac-
teria [75]. Access to these new organisms may remain limited
and will highly depends on our ability to cultivate them in
defined laboratory conditions and manipulate them genetically.
Nevertheless, the combination of single cells omics and the
incoming *in situ* high-resolution revolution driven by cryo-ET,
may enable us to crack open many of the little secrets of these
yet-to-be-cultivated non-model organisms.

The discovery potential is enormous and can be easily
illustrated by recent studies on ribosomal structures of para-
sitic ribosomal subunits that revealed how reductive evolution
may shape ribosome biogenesis and function. Moreover,
unleashing these ‘new worlds’ will also open a window
towards better understanding of major evolutionary con-
straints of ribosome synthesis and function [9,14,15,60,73,76].

4. Outlook: the coming age of *in vivo* comparative ribosome biology

Comparative biology is probably as old as biology itself and
remains a core discipline to understand phylogenetic relation-
ships, the evolutionary history, and the biological diversity of
key housekeeping processes.

The journey is a tedious but worthy one and our capacity
to explore biological diversity is getting wider and easier

every day; and yet many opportunities to follow new research
avenues remain way too often unseized [77,78]. This is due,
on the one hand, to scientific courage to follow new or
alternative paths but, on the other hand, it is essentially
impeded by multiple gatekeepers along the way, be it metho-
dological, political, or due to scientific conformism. All these
gatekeepers are sadly inhibiting the fundamentals of innovation:
curiosity and creativity, necessary to explore new frontiers.

In 2015, the same year where the Asgard archaea and CPR
were first reported [61,75], William Sullivan wrote, indepen-
dently of these discoveries, an essay entitled 'The Institute for
the Study of Non-Model Organisms and other fantasies' [79].
This idea might be explored in very different ways [80] but
should echo the need to build a sufficiently diverse scientific
critical mass and raise public and politic awareness in order to
hopefully leverage biological science to its full capacity.

Acknowledgments

I like to thank all the current and past lab members for stimulating
discussions and for being brave enough to follow somewhat unconven-
tional paths. I am particularly thankful to Michael Jüttner for critically
reading this manuscript and for his invaluable discussions and sugges-
tions. I wish to thank Marlene Oeffinger for the kind invitation to
contribute to this special issue and for letting me express a few personal
thoughts. I sincerely apologise to the authors whose work I could not cite
or discuss. Research in the SF-C laboratory is generously supported by
the German Research Foundation (DFG): individual research grant
[FE1622/2-1] and collaborative research centre SFB/CRC 960 grant
[SFB960-AP1, SFB960-B13] "RNP biogenesis: assembly of ribosomes
and non-ribosomal RNPs and control of their function".

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding

This work was supported by the German Research Foundation
[409198929] and [185476941].

Data availability statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created
or analyzed in this study.

ORCID

Sébastien Ferreira-Cerca http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0522-843X

References

[1] Ferreira-Cerca S. Life and death of ribosomes in archaea. In: Clouet-d'Orval B, editor. RNA metabolism and gene expression in archaea. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 129-158.

[2] Londei P, Ferreira-Cerca S. Ribosome biogenesis in archaea. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:1476.

[3] Schmitt E, Coureux P-D, Kazan R, et al. Recent advances in
archaeal translation initiation. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:2259.

[4] Ban N, Beckmann R, Cate JH, et al. A new system for naming
ribosomal proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2014;24:165-169.
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

[5] Birikmen M, Bohnsack KE, Tran V, et al. Tracing eukaryotic ribosome biogenesis factors into the archaeal domain sheds light on the evolution of functional complexity. *Front Microbiol.* 2021;12:2598.

[6] Ebersberger I, Simm S, Leisegang MS, et al. The evolution of the ribosome biogenesis pathway from a yeast perspective. *Nucleic Acids Res.* 2014;42:1509–1523.

[7] Britton RA, Wen T, Schaefer L, et al. Maturation of the 5' end of *Bacillus subtilis* 16S rRNA by the essential ribonuclease YqkC/RNase J1. *Mol Microbiol.* 2007;63:127–138.

[8] Deutscher MP. Chapter 9 maturation and degradation of ribosomal RNA in Bacteria. In: Condon, C. Eds. *Progress in molecular biology and translational science*. Vol. 85. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press; 2009. p. 369–391. ISBN 9780123747617. doi:10.1016/S0079-6603(08)00809-X.

[9] Grosjean H, Breton M, Sirand-Pugnet P, et al. Predicting the minimal translation apparatus: lessons from the reductive evolution of mollicutes. *PLoS Genet.* 2014;10:e1004363.

[10] Henras AK, Plisson-Chastang C, O'Donohue M-F, et al. An overview of pre-ribosomal RNA processing in eukaryotes. *WIREs RNA.* 2015;6:225–242.

[11] Ameismeier M, Cheng J, Berninghausen O, et al. Visualizing late states of human 40S ribosomal subunit maturation. *Nature*. 2018;558:249–253.

[12] Heuer A, Thomson E, Schmidt C, et al. *Cryo-EM structure of a late pre-40S ribosomal subunit from Saccharomyces cerevisiae.* *eLife*. 2017;6:e30189.

[13] Zorbas C, Nicolas E, Wacheul L, et al. The human 18S rRNA base methyltransferases DIMT1L and WBSCR22-TRMT112 but not rRNA modification are required for ribosome biogenesis. *Mol Biol Cell.* 2015;26:2080–2095.

[14] Barandun J, Hunziker M, Vossbrinck CR, et al. Evolutionary compaction and adaptation visualized by the structure of the dormant microsporidian ribosome. *Nat Microbiol.* 2019;4:1798–1804.

[15] Jespersen N, Monrroy L, Barandun J. Impact of Genome Reduction in Microsporidia. In: Weiss LM, Reinke AW, editors. *Microsporidia: current advances in biology*. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 1–42.

[16] Nicholson D, Salamina M, Panek J, et al. Adaptation to genome decay in the structure of the smallest eukaryotic ribosome. *Nat Commun.* 2022;13:591.

[17] Albers S-V, Forterre P, Prangishvili D, et al. The legacy of carl woese and wolfram zillig: from phylogeny to landmark discoveries. *Nat Rev Microbiol.* 2013;11:713–719.

[18] Fox GE, Magrum LJ, Balch WE, et al. Classification of methanogenic bacteria by 16S ribosomal RNA characterization. *Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.* 1977;74:4537–4541.

[19] Quammen D. The Tangled Tree: a Radical New History of Life. New York City: Simon & Schuster; 2018.

[20] Woese CR, Fox GE. Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 74, 1977. p. 5088–5090

[21] Woese CR, Kandler O, Wheelis ML. Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains archaea, bacteria, and eucarya. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America* 87, 1990. p. 4576–4579.

[22] Danson MJ, Hough DW. Structure, function and stability of enzymes from the Archaea. *Trends Microbiol.* 1998;6:307–314.

[23] Bult CJ, White O, Olsen GJ. Complete genome sequence of the methanogenic archaeon, methanococcus jannaschii. *Science.* 1996;273:1058–1073.

[24] Goffeau A, Barrell BG, Bussey H, et al. Life with 6000 Genes. *Science.* 1996;274:546–567.

[25] Lake JA. Evolving ribosome structure: domains in archaebacteria, eubacteria, eocytes and eukaryotes. *Annu Rev Biochem.* 1985;54:507–530.

[26] Lake JA, Henderson E, Oakes M, et al. Eocytes: a new ribosome structure indicates a kingdom with a close relationship to

eukaryotes. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America* 81, 3786–3790 (1984).

[27] Lake JA. Eukaryotic origins. *Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci.* 2015;370(1678):20140321.

[28] Rivera M, Lake J. Evidence that eukaryotes and eocyte prokaryotes are immediate relatives. *Science.* 1992;257(74):74–76.

[29] Nenad B, Poul N, Jeffrey H, et al. The complete atomic structure of the large ribosomal subunit at 2.4 Å resolution. *Science.* 2000;289:905–920.

[30] von Böhlen K, Makowski I, Hansen HAS, et al. Characterization and preliminary attempts for derivatization of crystals of large ribosomal subunits from *Haloarcula marismortui* diffracting to 3 Å resolution. *J Mol Biol.* 1991;222:11–15.

[31] Puglisi JD. Resolving the elegant architecture of the ribosome. *Mol Cell.* 2009;36:720–723.

[32] Blaha G, Gürel G, Schroeder SJ, et al. Mutations outside the anisomycin-binding site can make ribosomes drug-resistant. *J Mol Biol.* 2008;379:505–519.

[33] Hansen JL, Ippolito JA, Ban N, et al. The structures of four macrolide antibiotics bound to the large ribosomal subunit. *Mol Cell.* 2002;10:117–128.

[34] Winzeler Elizabeth A, Shoemaker DD, Astromoff A, et al. Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. *Science.* 1999;285:901–906.

[35] Tu D, Blaha G, Moore PB, et al. Gene replacement in *Haloarcula marismortui*: construction of a strain with two of its three chromosomal rRNA operons deleted. *Extremophiles.* 2005;9:427–435.

[36] Altamura S, Caprini E, Sanchez M, et al. Early assembly proteins of the large ribosomal subunit of the thermophilic archaea *Haloferax mediterranei*. *Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg.* 1996;1292:140–144.

[37] Londei P, Teixidó J, Acca M, et al. Total reconstitution of active large ribosomal subunits of the thermoacidophilic archaea *Haloferax mediterranei*. *Nucleic Acids Res.* 1986;14:2269–2285.

[38] Sanchez EM, Londei P, Amils R. Total reconstitution of active small ribosomal subunits of the extreme halophilic archaeon *Haloferax mediterranei*. *Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg.* 1996;1292:140–144.

[39] Sanchez ME, Urena D, Amils R, et al. In vitro reassembly of active large ribosomal subunits of the halophilic archaea *Haloferax mediterranei*. *Biochemistry.* 1990;29:9256–9261.

[40] Chant J, Dennis P. *Archaebacteria: transcription and processing of ribosomal RNA sequences in Halobacterium cutirubrum.* *EMBO J.* 1986;5:1091–1097.

[41] Ciammaruconi A, Londei P. In vitro processing of the 16S rRNA of the thermophilic archaeon sulfolobus solfataricus. *J Bacteriol.* 2001;183:3866–3874.

[42] Durovic P, Dennis PP. Separate pathways for excision and processing of 16S and 23S rRNA from the primary rRNA operon transcript from the hyperthermophilic archaea *Haloferax mediterranei*: similarities to eukaryotic rRNA processing. *Mol Microbiol.* 1994;13:229–242.

[43] Tang TH, et al. RNomics in Archaea reveals a further link between splicing of archaeal introns and rRNA processing. *Nucleic Acids Res.* 2002;30:921–930. doi:10.1093/nar/30.4.921.

[44] Yip WSV, Vincent NG, Baserga SJ. Ribonucleoproteins in Archaeal Pre-rRNA Processing and Modification. *Archaea.* 2013;2013:614735.

[45] Franziska B, Gagnon KT, Brown BA, et al. A dimeric structure for archaeal Box C/D small ribonucleoproteins. *Science.* 2009;325:1384–1387.

[46] Breuer R, Gomes-Filho J-V, Randau L. Conservation of Archaeal C/D box sRNA-Guided RNA modifications. *Front Microbiol.* 2021;12:496.

[47] Czekay DP, Kothe U. H/ACA small ribonucleoproteins: structural and functional comparison between archaea and eukaryotes. *Front Microbiol.* 2021;12:488.
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

[5] Birikmen M, Bohnsack KE, Tran V, et al. Tracing eukaryotic ribosome biogenesis factors into the archaeal domain sheds light on the evolution of functional complexity. *Front Microbiol.* 2021;12:2598.

[6] Ebersberger I, Simm S, Leisegang MS, et al. The evolution of the ribosome biogenesis pathway from a yeast perspective. *Nucleic Acids Res.* 2014;42:1509–1523.

[7] Britton RA, Wen T, Schaefer L, et al. Maturation of the 5' end of *Bacillus subtilis* 16S rRNA by the essential ribonuclease YqkC/RNase J1. *Mol Microbiol.* 2007;63:127–138.

[8] Deutscher MP. Chapter 9 maturation and degradation of ribosomal RNA in Bacteria. In: Condon, C. Eds. *Progress in molecular biology and translational science*. Vol. 85. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press; 2009. p. 369–391. ISBN 9780123747617. doi:10.1016/S0079-6603(08)00809-X.

[9] Grosjean H, Breton M, Sirand-Pugnet P, et al. Predicting the minimal translation apparatus: lessons from the reductive evolution of mollicutes. *PLoS Genet.* 2014;10:e1004363.

[10] Henras AK, Plisson-Chastang C, O'Donohue M-F, et al. An overview of pre-ribosomal RNA processing in eukaryotes. *WIREs RNA*. 2015;6:225–242.

[11] Ameismeier M, Cheng J, Berninghausen O, et al. Visualizing late states of human 40S ribosomal subunit maturation. *Nature*. 2018;558:249–253.

[12] Heuer A, Thomson E, Schmidt C, et al. Cryo-EM structure of a late pre-40S ribosomal subunit from *Saccharomyces cerevisiae*. *eLife*. 2017;6:e30189.

[13] Zorbas C, Nicolas E, Wacheul L, et al. The human 18S rRNA base methyltransferases DIMT1L and WBSCR22-TRMT112 but not rRNA modification are required for ribosome biogenesis. *Mol Biol Cell.* 2015;26:2080–2095.

[14] Barandun J, Hunziker M, Vossbrinck CR, et al. Evolutionary compaction and adaptation visualized by the structure of the dormant microsporidian ribosome. *Nat Microbiol.* 2019;4:1798–1804.

[15] Jespersen N, Monrroy L, Barandun J. Impact of Genome Reduction in Microsporidia. In: Weiss LM, Reinke AW, editors. *Microsporidia: current advances in biology*. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 1–42.

[16] Nicholson D, Salamina M, Panek J, et al. Adaptation to genome decay in the structure of the smallest eukaryotic ribosome. *Nat Commun.* 2022;13:591.

[17] Albers S-V, Forterre P, Prangishvili D, et al. The legacy of carl woese and wolfram zillig: from phylogeny to landmark discoveries. *Nat Rev Microbiol.* 2013;11:713–719.

[18] Fox GE, Magrum LJ, Balch WE, et al. Classification of methanogenic bacteria by 16S ribosomal RNA characterization. *Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.* 1977;74:4537–4541.

[19] Quammen D. The Tangled Tree: a Radical New History of Life. New York City: Simon & Schuster; 2018.

[20] Woese CR, Fox GE. Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 74, 1977. p. 5088–5090

[21] Woese CR, Kandler O, Wheelis ML. Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains archaea, bacteria, and eucarya. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America* 87, 1990. p. 4576–4579.

[22] Danson MJ, Hough DW. Structure, function and stability of enzymes from the Archaea. *Trends Microbiol.* 1998;6:307–314.

[23] Bult CJ, White O, Olsen GJ. Complete genome sequence of the methanogenic archaeon, methanococcus jannaschii. *Science.* 1996;273:1058–1073.

[24] Goffeau A, Barrell BG, Bussey H, et al. Life with 6000 Genes. *Science.* 1996;274:546–567.

[25] Lake JA. Evolving ribosome structure: domains in archaebacteria, eubacteria, eocytes and eukaryotes. *Annu Rev Biochem.* 1985;54:507–530.

[26] Lake JA, Henderson E, Oakes M, et al. Eocytes: a new ribosome structure indicates a kingdom with a close relationship to

eukaryotes. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America* 81, 3786–3790 (1984).

[27] Lake JA. Eukaryotic origins. *Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci.* 2015;370(1678):20140321.

[28] Rivera M, Lake J. Evidence that eukaryotes and eocyte prokaryotes are immediate relatives. *Science.* 1992;257(74):74–76.

[29] Nenad B, Poul N, Jeffrey H, et al. The complete atomic structure of the large ribosomal subunit at 2.4 Å resolution. *Science.* 2000;289:905–920.

[30] von Böhlen K, Makowski I, Hansen HAS, et al. Characterization and preliminary attempts for derivatization of crystals of large ribosomal subunits from *Haloarcula marismortui* diffracting to 3 Å resolution. *J Mol Biol.* 1991;222:11–15.

[31] Puglisi JD. Resolving the elegant architecture of the ribosome. *Mol Cell.* 2009;36:720–723.

[32] Blaha G, Gürel G, Schroeder SJ, et al. Mutations outside the anisomycin-binding site can make ribosomes drug-resistant. *J Mol Biol.* 2008;379:505–519.

[33] Hansen JL, Ippolito JA, Ban N, et al. The structures of four macrolide antibiotics bound to the large ribosomal subunit. *Mol Cell.* 2002;10:117–128.

[34] Winzeler Elizabeth A, Shoemaker DD, Astromoff A, et al. Functional characterization of the S. cerevisiae genome by gene deletion and parallel analysis. *Science.* 1999;285:901–906.

[35] Tu D, Blaha G, Moore PB, et al. Gene replacement in *Haloarcula marismortui*: construction of a strain with two of its three chromosomal rRNA operons deleted. *Extremophiles*. 2005;9:427–435.

[36] Altamura S, Caprini E, Sanchez M, et al. Early assembly proteins of the large ribosomal subunit of the thermophilic archaea *Haloferax mediterranei*. *Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg.* 1996;1292:140–144.

[37] Londei P, Teixidó J, Acca M, et al. Total reconstitution of active large ribosomal subunits of the thermoacidophilic archaea *Haloferax mediterranei*. *Nucleic Acids Res.* 1986;14:2269–2285.

[38] Sanchez EM, Londei P, Amils R. Total reconstitution of active small ribosomal subunits of the extreme halophilic archaeon *Haloferax mediterranei*. *Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg.* 1996;1292:140–144.

[39] Sanchez ME, Urena D, Amils R, et al. In vitro reassembly of active large ribosomal subunits of the halophilic archaea *Haloferax mediterranei*. *Biochemistry.* 1990;29:9256–9261.

[40] Chant J, Dennis P. *Archaebacteria: transcription and processing of ribosomal RNA sequences in Halobacterium cutirubrum*. *EMBO J.* 1986;5:1091–1097.

[41] Ciammaruconi A, Londei P. In vitro processing of the 16S rRNA of the thermophilic archaeon sulfolobus solfataricus. *J Bacteriol.* 2001;183:3866–3874.

[42] Durovic P, Dennis PP. Separate pathways for excision and processing of 16S and 23S rRNA from the primary rRNA operon transcript from the hyperthermophilic archaea *Haloferax mediterranei*: similarities to eukaryotic rRNA processing. *Mol Microbiol.* 1994;13:229–242.

[43] Tang TH, et al. RNomics in Archaea reveals a further link between splicing of archaeal introns and rRNA processing. *Nucleic Acids Res.* 2002;30:921–930. doi:10.1093/nar/30.4.921.

[44] Yip WSV, Vincent NG, Baserga SJ. Ribonucleoproteins in Archaeal Pre-rRNA Processing and Modification. *Archaea.* 2013;2013:614735.

[45] Franziska B, Gagnon KT, Brown BA, et al. A dimeric structure for archaeal Box C/D small ribonucleoproteins. *Science.* 2009;325:1384–1387.

[46] Breuer R, Gomes-Filho J-V, Randau L. Conservation of Archaeal C/D box sRNA-Guided RNA modifications. *Front Microbiol.* 2021;12:496.

[47] Czekay DP, Kothe U. H/ACA small ribonucleoproteins: structural and functional comparison between archaea and eukaryotes. *Front Microbiol.* 2021;12:488.
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

[48] Lapinaite A, Simon B, Skjaerven L, et al. The structure of the box C/D enzyme reveals regulation of RNA methylation. Nature. 2013;502:519-523.

[49] Omer Arina D, Lowe TM, Russell AG, et al. Homologs of small nucleolar RNAs in archaea. Science. 2000;288(5465):517-522.

[50] Xue S, Wang R, Yang F, et al. Structural Basis for Substrate Placement by an Archaeal Box C/D Ribonucleoprotein Particle. Mol Cell. 2010;39(6):939-949.

[51] Poul N, Jeffrey H, Nenad B, et al. The structural basis of ribosome activity in peptide bond synthesis. Science. 2000;289:920-930.

[52] Elizabeth P. The race to the ribosome structure. Science. 1999;285:2048-2051.

[53] Ramakrishnan V. Gene machine: the race to decipher the secrets of the ribosome. London: One World Publications; 2018.

[54] Bhaya D, Davison M, Barrangou R. CRISPR-Cas systems in bacteria and archaea: versatile small rnas for adaptive defense and regulation. Annu Rev Genet. 2011;45:273-297.

[55] Brodt A, Lurie-Weinberger MN, Gophna U. CRISPR loci reveal networks of gene exchange in archaea. Biol Direct. 2011;6:65.

[56] Spang A, Caceres EF, Ettema TJG. Genomic exploration of the diversity, ecology, and evolution of the archaeal domain of life. Science. 2017;357:eaaf3883.

[57] Tahon G, Geesink P, Ettema TJG. Expanding archaeal diversity and phylogeny: past, present, and future. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2021;75:359-381.

[58] Da Cunha V, Gaia M, Gadelle D, et al. Lokiarchaea are close relatives of Euryarchaeota, not bridging the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. PLoS Genet. 2017;13:e1006810.

[59] Da Cunha V, Gaia M, Nasir A, et al. Asgard archaea do not close the debate about the universal tree of life topology. PLoS Genet. 2018;14:e1007215.

[60] Jüttner M, Ferreira-Cerca S, Battistuzzi FU. Looking through the lens of the ribosome biogenesis evolutionary history: possible implications for archaeal phylogeny and eukaryogenesis. Mol Biol Evol. 2022;39:msac054.

[61] Spang A, Saw JH, Jorgensen SL, et al. Complex archaea that bridge the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Nature. 2015;521:173-179.

[62] Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka K, Caceres EF, Saw JH, et al. Asgard archaea illuminate the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity. Nature. 2017;541:353-358.

[63] Spang A, Eme L, Saw JH, et al. Asgard archaea are the closest prokaryotic relatives of eukaryotes. PLoS Genet. 2018;14: e1007080.

[64] Farkas JA, Picking JW, Santangelo TJ. Genetic Techniques for the Archaea. Annu Rev Genet. 2013;47:539-561.

[65] Christian F, Beblawy, S., Enkerlin, A.M., Mühling, L., Angenent, L.T. and Molitor, B. A shuttle-vector system allows heterologous gene expression in the thermophilic methanogen *methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus* ΔH. mBio. 2021;12:e02766-21.

[66] Leigh JA, Albers S-V, Atomi H, et al. Model organisms for genetics in the domain Archaea: methanogens, halophiles, Thermococcales and Sulfolobales. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2011;35:577-608.

[67] Zink IA, Fouqueau, T., Tarrason Risa, G., Werner, F., Baum, B., Bläsi, U. and Schleper, C. Comparative CRISPR type III-based knockdown of essential genes in hyperthermophilic Sulfolobales and the evasion of lethal gene silencing. Null. 2021;18:421-434.

[68] Charles-Orszag A, Lord SJ, Mullins RD. High-temperature live-cell imaging of cytokinesis, cell motility, and cell-cell interactions in the thermoacidophilic crenarchaeon sulfolobus acidocaldarius. Front Microbiol. 2021;12. DOI:10.3389/fmicb. 2021.707124

[69] Ithurbide S, Gribaldo S, Albers S-V, et al. Spotlight on FtsZ-based cell division in Archaea. Trends Microbiol. 2022;30:665-678.

[70] Pulschen AA, Mutavchiev, D.R., Culley, S., Sebastian, K.N., Roubinet, J., Roubinet, M., Risa, G.T., van Wolferen, M., Roubinet, C., Schmidt, U. and Dey, G. Live imaging of a hyperthermophilic archaeon reveals distinct roles for two escrt-iii homologs in ensuring a robust and symmetric division. Curr Biol. 2020;30:2852-2859.e4.

[71] Bilen M, Dufour J-C, Lagier J-C, et al. The contribution of culturomics to the repertoire of isolated human bacterial and archaeal species. Microbiome. 2018;6:94.

[72] Lewis WH, Tahon G, Geesink P, et al. Innovations to culturing the uncultured microbial majority. Nature Rev Microbiol. 2021;19:225-240.

[73] Castelle CJ, Banfield JF. Major new microbial groups expand diversity and alter our understanding of the tree of life. Cell. 2018;172:1181-1197.

[74] Castelle CJ, Brown CT, Anantharaman K, et al. Biosynthetic capacity, metabolic variety and unusual biology in the CPR and DPANN radiations. Nature Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:629-645.

[75] Brown CT, Hug LA, Thomas BC, et al. Unusual biology across a group comprising more than 15% of domain Bacteria. Nature. 2015;523:208-211.

[76] Melnikov S, Manakongtreecheep K, Söll D. Revising the structural diversity of ribosomal proteins across the three domains of life. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35:1588-1598.

[77] Edwards AM, Isserlin R, Bader GD, et al. Too many roads not taken. Nature. 2011;470(7333):163-165.

[78] Kustatscher G, Collins T, Gingras A-C, et al. Understudied proteins: opportunities and challenges for functional proteomics. Nat Methods. 2022;19:774-779.

[79] Sullivan W, Kellogg D. The institute for the study of non-model organisms and other fantasies. MBoC. 2015;26:387-389.

[80] Kustatscher G, Collins T, Gingras A-C, et al. An open invitation to the understudied proteins initiative. Nat Biotechnol. 2022;40:815-817.
[48] Lapinaite A, Simon B, Skjaerven L, et al. The structure of the box C/D enzyme reveals regulation of RNA methylation. Nature. 2013;502:519-523.

[49] Omer Arina D, Lowe TM, Russell AG, et al. Homologs of small nucleolar RNAs in archaea. Science. 2000;288(5465):517-522.

[50] Xue S, Wang R, Yang F, et al. Structural Basis for Substrate Placement by an Archaeal Box C/D Ribonucleoprotein Particle. Mol Cell. 2010;39(6):939-949.

[51] Poul N, Jeffrey H, Nenad B, et al. The structural basis of ribosome activity in peptide bond synthesis. Science. 2000;289:920-930.

[52] Elizabeth P. The race to the ribosome structure. Science. 1999;285:2048-2051.

[53] Ramakrishnan V. Gene machine: the race to decipher the secrets of the ribosome. London: One World Publications; 2018.

[54] Bhaya D, Davison M, Barrangou R. CRISPR-Cas systems in bacteria and archaea: versatile small rnas for adaptive defense and regulation. Annu Rev Genet. 2011;45:273-297.

[55] Brodt A, Lurie-Weinberger MN, Gophna U. CRISPR loci reveal networks of gene exchange in archaea. Biol Direct. 2011;6:65.

[56] Spang A, Caceres EF, Ettema TJG. Genomic exploration of the diversity, ecology, and evolution of the archaeal domain of life. Science. 2017;357:eaaf3883.

[57] Tahon G, Geesink P, Ettema TJG. Expanding archaeal diversity and phylogeny: past, present, and future. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2021;75:359-381.

[58] Da Cunha V, Gaia M, Gadelle D, et al. Lokiarchaea are close relatives of Euryarchaeota, not bridging the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. PLoS Genet. 2017;13:e1006810.

[59] Da Cunha V, Gaia M, Nasir A, et al. Asgard archaea do not close the debate about the universal tree of life topology. PLoS Genet. 2018;14:e1007215.

[60] Jüttner M, Ferreira-Cerca S, Battistuzzi FU. Looking through the lens of the ribosome biogenesis evolutionary history: possible implications for archaeal phylogeny and eukaryogenesis. Mol Biol Evol. 2022;39:msac054.

[61] Spang A, Saw JH, Jorgensen SL, et al. Complex archaea that bridge the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Nature. 2015;521:173-179.

[62] Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka K, Caceres EF, Saw JH, et al. Asgard archaea illuminate the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity. Nature. 2017;541:353-358.

[63] Spang A, Eme L, Saw JH, et al. Asgard archaea are the closest prokaryotic relatives of eukaryotes. PLoS Genet. 2018;14: e1007080.

[64] Farkas JA, Picking JW, Santangelo TJ. Genetic Techniques for the Archaea. Annu Rev Genet. 2013;47:539-561.

[65] Christian F, Beblawy, S., Enkerlin, A.M., Mühling, L., Angenent, L.T. and Molitor, B. A shuttle-vector system allows heterologous gene expression in the thermophilic methanogen *methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus* ΔH. mBio. 2021;12:e02766-21.

[66] Leigh JA, Albers S-V, Atomi H, et al. Model organisms for genetics in the domain Archaea: methanogens, halophiles, Thermococcales and Sulfolobales. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2011;35:577-608.

[67] Zink IA, Fouqueau, T., Tarrason Risa, G., Werner, F., Baum, B., Bläsi, U. and Schleper, C. Comparative CRISPR type III-based knockdown of essential genes in hyperthermophilic Sulfolobales and the evasion of lethal gene silencing. Null. 2021;18:421-434.

[68] Charles-Orszag A, Lord SJ, Mullins RD. High-temperature live-cell imaging of cytokinesis, cell motility, and cell-cell interactions in the thermoacidophilic crenarchaeon sulfolobus acidocaldarius. Front Microbiol. 2021;12. DOI:10.3389/fmicb. 2021.707124

[69] Ithurbide S, Gribaldo S, Albers S-V, et al. Spotlight on FtsZ-based cell division in Archaea. Trends Microbiol. 2022;30:665-678.

[70] Pulschen AA, Mutavchiev, D.R., Culley, S., Sebastian, K.N., Roubinet, J., Roubinet, M., Risa, G.T., van Wolferen, M., Roubinet, C., Schmidt, U. and Dey, G. Live imaging of a hyperthermophilic archaeon reveals distinct roles for two escrt-iii homologs in ensuring a robust and symmetric division. Curr Biol. 2020;30:2852-2859.e4.

[71] Bilen M, Dufour J-C, Lagier J-C, et al. The contribution of culturomics to the repertoire of isolated human bacterial and archaeal species. Microbiome. 2018;6:94.

[72] Lewis WH, Tahon G, Geesink P, et al. Innovations to culturing the uncultured microbial majority. Nature Rev Microbiol. 2021;19:225-240.

[73] Castelle CJ, Banfield JF. Major new microbial groups expand diversity and alter our understanding of the tree of life. Cell. 2018;172:1181-1197.

[74] Castelle CJ, Brown CT, Anantharaman K, et al. Biosynthetic capacity, metabolic variety and unusual biology in the CPR and DPANN radiations. Nature Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:629-645.

[75] Brown CT, Hug LA, Thomas BC, et al. Unusual biology across a group comprising more than 15% of domain Bacteria. Nature. 2015;523:208-211.

[76] Melnikov S, Manakongtreecheep K, Söll D. Revising the structural diversity of ribosomal proteins across the three domains of life. Mol Biol Evol. 2018;35:1588-1598.

[77] Edwards AM, Isserlin R, Bader GD, et al. Too many roads not taken. Nature. 2011;470(7333):163-165.

[78] Kustatscher G, Collins T, Gingras A-C, et al. Understudied proteins: opportunities and challenges for functional proteomics. Nat Methods. 2022;19:774-779.

[79] Sullivan W, Kellogg D. The institute for the study of non-model organisms and other fantasies. MBoC. 2015;26:387-389.

[80] Kustatscher G, Collins T, Gingras A-C, et al. An open invitation to the understudied proteins initiative. Nat Biotechnol. 2022;40:815-817.