Cell Biology · Compartments Protein Sorting
Evolutionary Origins of Internal Membranes
On this page 7 sections
In 30 seconds
Eukaryotic cells acquired their membrane-bound compartments by (at least) two different evolutionary routes. Mitochondria and chloroplasts originated by endosymbiosis: free-living bacteria were engulfed by an ancestral host cell and, instead of being digested, became permanent residents, eventually losing most of their genes to the host nucleus. The nucleus and the endomembrane system, by contrast, are thought to have arisen by invagination of the plasma membrane of a larger, more complex ancestor, folding inward and pinching off to form internal compartments whose lumen retains continuity with the outside. Both hypotheses are strongly supported by multiple independent lines of evidence, but the invagination scenario is more inferential than the endosymbiotic one, and should be stated with appropriate caution.
Why this matters
Understanding organelle origins explains fundamental features of modern cell biology: why mitochondria have their own DNA, why the mitochondrial genetic code differs slightly from the nuclear code, why mitochondrial DNA is inherited maternally, and why antibiotics can target mitochondria. It also explains the otherwise puzzling topology of the endomembrane system. The endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria is one of the most consequential events in the history of life, widely regarded as a prerequisite for the evolution of complex, energy-hungry eukaryotic cells.
The college version
Core Concept
Eukaryotic cells acquired their membrane-bound compartments by (at least) two different evolutionary routes. Mitochondria and chloroplasts originated by endosymbiosis: free-living bacteria were engulfed by an ancestral host cell and, instead of being digested, became permanent residents, eventually losing most of their genes to the host nucleus. The nucleus and the endomembrane system, by contrast, are thought to have arisen by invagination of the plasma membrane of a larger, more complex ancestor, folding inward and pinching off to form internal compartments whose lumen retains continuity with the outside. Both hypotheses are strongly supported by multiple independent lines of evidence, but the invagination scenario is more inferential than the endosymbiotic one, and should be stated with appropriate caution.
Key Components
- Endosymbiosis: one cell lives inside another in a stable, mutually beneficial relationship.
- Mitochondria: descended from an α-proteobacterial ancestor.
- Chloroplasts/plastids: descended from a cyanobacterial ancestor.
- Invagination hypothesis: the nuclear envelope and ER are imagined to arise from inward folds of the plasma membrane.
- Gene transfer: the massive movement of organellar genes into the host nuclear genome.
Mechanism / How It Works
For endosymbiosis: (1) an anaerobic archaeal-like host engulfed (or was invaded by) an aerobic α-proteobacterium capable of oxidative phosphorylation. (2) Rather than being destroyed, the bacterium was retained, converting toxic oxygen into a usable energy supply — a mutual advantage. (3) Over evolutionary time the symbiont lost genes it no longer needed, transferred most of the rest to the host nucleus, and became an organelle that imports nuclear-encoded proteins. (4) Chloroplasts arose later when a eukaryotic cell engulfed a photosynthetic cyanobacterium (a primary endosymbiosis; further rounds of engulfing a eukaryotic alga produced secondary plastids).
For invagination: an ancestral cell with no internal membranes folded its plasma membrane inward, creating a continuous invaginated membrane that surrounded the DNA, forming the nuclear envelope, and produced the ER as an extension of that fold. Because the fold came from the outer membrane, the interior of the nucleus/ER lumen remains topologically continuous with the extracellular space — exactly the topology the modern cell still shows.
Energy and Directionality
The origin of internal membranes was not a single energy-driven process but a selective outcome. Endosymbiosis is favored because it concentrates energy production (oxidative phosphorylation or photosynthesis) inside a membrane whose large surface area supports chemiosmotic gradients; the host gained ATP while the symbiont gained a stable, nutrient-rich environment. Invagination was favored because compartmentalization allows incompatible chemistries to be separated and creates a larger membrane area for transport and signaling. Neither step is "directional" in a thermodynamic sense — both are products of natural selection acting on heritable variation over millions of generations.
Experimental Evidence / Technique
Evidence for endosymbiosis is exceptionally strong: mitochondria and chloroplasts (1) have double membranes; (2) contain their own circular DNA and 70S (bacterial-type) ribosomes; (3) divide by binary fission; (4) use N-formylmethionine to initiate translation and are inhibited by antibiotics that target bacterial ribosomes; and (5) have gene sequences (especially small-subunit rRNA) that place mitochondria within α-Proteobacteria and chloroplasts within Cyanobacteria. Evidence for invagination is more circumstantial: the nuclear envelope is a continuous double membrane whose outer membrane is studded with ribosomes and continuous with the ER, and the lumens of the nuclear envelope and ER are continuous with each other and topologically equivalent to the extracellular space — consistent with an origin from an infolded plasma membrane. Genome sequencing and phylogenetics provide the quantitative backbone for both hypotheses.
How it works
For endosymbiosis: (1) an anaerobic archaeal-like host engulfed (or was invaded by) an aerobic α-proteobacterium capable of oxidative phosphorylation. (2) Rather than being destroyed, the bacterium was retained, converting toxic oxygen into a usable energy supply — a mutual advantage. (3) Over evolutionary time the symbiont lost genes it no longer needed, transferred most of the rest to the host nucleus, and became an organelle that imports nuclear-encoded proteins. (4) Chloroplasts arose later when a eukaryotic cell engulfed a photosynthetic cyanobacterium (a primary endosymbiosis; further rounds of engulfing a eukaryotic alga produced secondary plastids).
For invagination: an ancestral cell with no internal membranes folded its plasma membrane inward, creating a continuous invaginated membrane that surrounded the DNA, forming the nuclear envelope, and produced the ER as an extension of that fold. Because the fold came from the outer membrane, the interior of the nucleus/ER lumen remains topologically continuous with the extracellular space — exactly the topology the modern cell still shows.
Common confusions
- "The nucleus arose by endosymbiosis like mitochondria." — There is little evidence for this; the nucleus and ER are better explained by plasma-membrane invagination and lack the bacterial signatures (their own DNA, 70S ribosomes) that mitochondria/chloroplasts have.
- "Mitochondria kept all their own genes." — They kept only a tiny fraction (a few dozen in animals); the vast majority of mitochondrial proteins are encoded in the nucleus and imported.
- "Double membrane always means endosymbiosis." — No; the nuclear envelope is also a double membrane but is thought to arise by invagination, not engulfment.
- "These are proven facts." — Endosymbiosis is as well-supported as any historical claim in biology; the invagination scenario is a plausible inference, not an observed event.
- "Organelles can live independently." — Modern mitochondria and chloroplasts cannot survive outside the cell; they are fully integrated organelles, not free bacteria.
Quick review
- Mitochondria and chloroplasts arose by endosymbiosis of a bacterium and a cyanobacterium, respectively.
- Supporting evidence is structural, biochemical, and phylogenetic.
- Nuclear envelope and ER likely arose by plasma-membrane invagination.
- Invagination explains the continuity of nuclear/ER lumen with the extracellular space.
- Organellar genes were largely transferred to the host nucleus.
- Endosymbiosis is well supported; invagination is cautiously inferred.

Eli explains
The same idea, in plain words
Explain it like I’m 10
Imagine a big cell swallowed a tiny bacterium that was very good at making power. Instead of eating it, the cell kept it like a pet — the bacterium got a safe home and free food, and in return it made lots of energy for the cell. Over millions of years they became so used to living together that the little bacterium became a permanent part of the cell — the mitochondria. The cell's own internal rooms (the nucleus and the factory membranes) probably formed a different way: the cell's outer skin folded inward, like pushing your finger into a balloon, and those folds pinched off into inside rooms. That's why the inside of those rooms is still, in a way, "outside." (The analogy leaves out that the "pet" also slowly gave away almost all of its instruction book — its genes — to the big cell.)
Key takeaways
- ### High-Yield Facts
- Mitochondria descended from an α-proteobacterium; chloroplasts from a cyanobacterium.
- Evidence: double membrane, own circular DNA, 70S ribosomes, binary fission, antibiotic sensitivity, phylogenetic placement.
- The nuclear envelope and ER likely arose by invagination of the plasma membrane.
- Nuclear outer membrane is continuous with the ER and studded with ribosomes.
- Most mitochondrial genes have been transferred to the nucleus.
- Endosymbiosis is very well supported; invagination is a reasonable but more inferential hypothesis.
- Secondary endosymbiosis: a eukaryote engulfs another eukaryote (explains plastids with 3–4 membranes).
Study tools & related lessonsYou’ll learn to · Related
You’ll learn to
- Explain the endosymbiotic hypothesis for the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts.
- Describe the invagination hypothesis for the origin of the nuclear envelope and endomembrane system.
- List the key lines of evidence that support each hypothesis.
- Distinguish between well-supported and speculative aspects of these origins.
Sources & references
- OpenStax, *Biology 2e*, "4.3 Eukaryotic Cells." https://openstax.org/books/biology-2e/pages/4-3-eukaryotic-cells
- Alberts et al., *Molecular Biology of the Cell*, 4th ed., "The Compartmentalization of Cells." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26907/
- Alberts et al., *Molecular Biology of the Cell*, 4th ed., "Intracellular Compartments and Protein Sorting." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21053/
- Alberts et al., *Molecular Biology of the Cell*, 4th ed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21054/
This lesson was adapted from the open educational references above; their licenses and attributions are preserved. See Copyright & Licensing.
Educational content only. It is not medical, legal or professional advice. Found an error? Tell us.
