Archaea and bacteria are both prokaryotes, meaning they do not have a nucleus and lack membrane-bound organelles. They are tiny, single-cell organisms called microbes, which cannot be seen by the naked human eye. When we look at them through a microscope, we find that archaea and bacteria resemble each other in shape and size. They exist as rods, cones, plates, and …show more content…
Genome sequencing of archaea also reveals genes that resemble eukaryotes more than bacteria. This is a big difference between archaea and bacteria. Cell division in archaea undergoes distinct processes not found in bacteria. Also, bacteria can form spores that lie dormant for years, until a proper habitat is found in which they can grow. Archaea haven't been found to do …show more content…
For example, all bacteria contain peptidoglycans (a molecule composed of both protein and sugar rings) in their cell walls. However, archaea do not have this compound in their cell walls. Archea and bacteria both reproduce using binary fission, and move around using flagella. providing structural support, and lets certain elements/substances pass through for cellular work.
These two microorganisms also differ in many ways to include different Ribosomal RNAs (rRNA). Archea have three RNA polymerases like eukaryotes, but bacteria have only one. Archaea have cell walls that lack peptidoglycan and have membranes that enclose lipids with hydrocarbons rather than fatty acids. These lipids in the membranes of archaea are unique and contain ether linkages between the glycerol backbones rather than ester linkages. Archaea resembles eukaryotes more than bacteria. Their ribosomes work more like eukaryotic ribosomes than bacterial ribosomes. whereas bacteria live in "moderate" environments, archaea are usually thought of as extremophiles, capable of living in extreme temperatures, salt concentrations, high pressure, acidic or basic