karyogenic

An interaction between DNA, nuclear matrix and membrane proteins shoudl do the trick. hrun: Albert, there is no ˜moving of the machinery inside 'in the karyogenic model.

Albert de Roos: A design hypothesis for the evolution of the nucleus 2006

In all karyogenic models, translation and transcription were once in the same compartment, but transcription and ribosome assembly was moved to the nucleus.

Albert de Roos: A design hypothesis for the evolution of the nucleus 2006

Mike, there are three reason why this would support a karyogenic model, rather than Albert's.

Albert de Roos: A design hypothesis for the evolution of the nucleus 2006

In the karyogenic model, a nucleus with non-selecitive pores comes first.

Albert de Roos: A design hypothesis for the evolution of the nucleus 2006

Your model (just like the karyogenic model) requires the sudden appearance of IC systems (large non-selective channels in a membrane).

Albert de Roos: A design hypothesis for the evolution of the nucleus 2006

In all karyogenic models, translation and transcription were once in the same compartment, but transcription and ribosome assembly was moved to the nucleus.

Albert de Roos: A design hypothesis for the evolution of the nucleus 2006

Finally, in the karyogenic model (just like in your model) there is no need to ˜move the machinery inside the nucleus '.

Albert de Roos: A design hypothesis for the evolution of the nucleus 2006

Albert, there is no ˜moving of the machinery inside 'in the karyogenic model.

Albert de Roos: A design hypothesis for the evolution of the nucleus 2006

Your scenario is (just like the karyogenic models) at odds with your ˜design by contract 'hypothesis.

Albert de Roos: A design hypothesis for the evolution of the nucleus 2006

It appears to me that in the karyogenic model the NPCs develop gradually and become ever more sophisticated in transporting the appropriate substrates into the appropriate compartment.

Albert de Roos: A design hypothesis for the evolution of the nucleus 2006