BACKGROUND The origin of eukaryotic cells was an important transition in evolution. The factors underlying the origin and evolutionary success of the eukaryote lineage are still discussed. One camp argues that mitochondria were essential for eukaryote origin because of the unique configuration of internalized bioenergetic membranes that they conferred to the common ancestor of all known eukaryotic lineages. A recent paper by Lynch and Marinov concluded that mitochondria were energetically irrelevant to eukaryote origin, a conclusion based on analyses of previously published numbers of various molecules and ribosomes per cell and cell volumes as a presumed proxy for the role of mitochondria in evolution. Their numbers were purportedly extracted from the literature. RESULTS We have examined the numbers upon which the recent study was based. We report that for a sample of 80 numbers that were purportedly extracted from the literature and that underlie key inferences of the recent study, more than 50% of the values do not exist in the cited papers to which the numbers are attributed. The published result cannot be independently reproduced. Other numbers that the recent study reports differ inexplicably from those in the literature to which they are ascribed. We list the discrepancies between the recently published numbers and the purported literature sources of those numbers in a head to head manner so that the discrepancies are readily evident, although the source of error underlying the discrepancies remains obscure. CONCLUSION The data purportedly supporting the view that mitochondria had no impact upon eukaryotic evolution data exhibits notable irregularities. The paper in question evokes the impression that the published numbers are of up to seven significant digit accuracy, when in fact more than half the numbers are nowhere to be found in the literature to which they are attributed. Though the reasons for the discrepancies are unknown, it is important to air these issues, lest the prominent paper in question become a point source of a snowballing error through the literature or become interpreted as a form of evidence that mitochondria were irrelevant to eukaryote evolution. REVIEWERS This article was reviewed by Eric Bapteste, Jianzhi Zhang and Martin Lercher.

中文翻译：

---

在原核生物和真核生物之间存在争议的难以捉摸的数据。

背景技术真核细胞的起源是进化中的重要过渡。真核生物谱系的起源和进化成功的基础因素仍在讨论中。一个阵营认为线粒体对于真核生物是必不可少的，因为线粒体赋予所有已知的真核生物谱系的共同祖先内在的生物能膜独特的结构。Lynch和Marinov最近发表的一篇论文得出结论，线粒体在能量上与真核生物无关，该结论基于先前对每个细胞和细胞体积中各种分子和核糖体数量的分析，推测是线粒体在进化中的作用的代表。据称它们的数量是从文献中提取的。结果我们检查了最近的研究所依据的数字。我们报告说，据称是从文献中提取的80个数字的样本，是最近研究的主要推论的基础，这些数字所引用的论文中不存在超过50％的值。发布的结果不能独立复制。最近的研究报告的其他数字与它们所引用的文献中的数字有莫名其妙的差异。我们以头对头的方式列出了最近公布的数字与这些数字的据称文献来源之间的差异，因此，尽管差异背后的错误根源仍然晦涩难懂，但差异显而易见。结论据称支持线粒体对真核生物进化数据无影响的观点的数据显示出明显的不规则性。有争议的论文给人的印象是，已公布的数字最高可达到七个有效数字的准确性，而实际上，超过一半的数字在其所属的文献中找不到。尽管差异的原因尚不清楚，但重要的是宣扬这些问题，以免有争议的著名论文成为文献中滚雪球错误的重要原因，或者被解释为线粒体与真核生物的进化无关的证据。审阅者本文由Eric Bapteste，Jianzhi Zhang和Martin Lercher审阅。尽管差异的原因尚不清楚，但重要的是宣扬这些问题，以免有争议的著名论文成为文献中滚雪球错误的重要原因，或者被解释为线粒体与真核生物的进化无关的证据。审阅者本文由Eric Bapteste，Jianzhi Zhang和Martin Lercher审阅。尽管差异的原因尚不清楚，但重要的是宣扬这些问题，以免有争议的著名论文成为文献中滚雪球错误的重要原因，或者被解释为线粒体与真核生物的进化无关的证据。审阅者本文由Eric Bapteste，Jianzhi Zhang和Martin Lercher审阅。