Fascinating!

The article should have at least tipped its hat to mitochondria:

>But unlike a virus, Sukunaarchaeum has its own ribosomes, cellular structures that synthesize proteins, and it can replicate itself without the help of a host.

Yes and this is true of mitochondria as well: Their own DNA, a own complex set of membranes, a private customized set of ribosomal proteins and tRNAs, and the ability to replicate within the “host”. Mitochondria are also perfectly happy to be swapped from cell to cell.

I wonder if or how these nanobiobots contribute to the fitness of their hosts.

▲

kitd 5 days ago | parent [-]

So, from my amateur perspective, Sukunaarchaeum + mitochondria = bacterium?

	▲	cwmma 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		ok so we knew about bacteria, tiny cells that don't have a nucleus, responsible for lots of disease. Bacteria do not look like the bigger cells that have a nucleus, they noticeable differences in how they work. Those big cells do have mitochondria in them which very much do look like bacteria that started living in those other cells. Later on archaea were discovered they are the size of bacteria but the look like the bigger cells in how some of the key things in side of them work. Archaea don't cause any known diseases so that's one of the reasons it took so long to find them, but we can now find them all over the place by their DNA and it's now pretty clear that the ancestor of all big celled (and multi cellular life) was an archaea and they've even found the group of archaea that multi cellular life evolved out of.
	▲	SideburnsOfDoom 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Well, no, because (from the article) "Archaea are similar to bacteria, but distinct in their structure, genetics, and metabolism."