Complex multicellular organisms face a paradox of oxygen-sensitive tissue renewal: oxygen is required for aerobic metabolism, yet the low-oxygen conditions that maintain stem cells and support embryogenesis in vertebrates are incompatible with the oxic environments in which diverse animals, plants, and algae now live. Hammarlund (2020) proposed that complex multicellularity succeeded by 'harnessing hypoxia' through four candidate solutions — internal oxygen gradients, fast cell fate turnover, hypoxia-response machinery, and pseudohypoxia — and explicitly left open how these solutions were distributed among lineages, whether they were shared or evolved in parallel, and whether invertebrates truly depend on genuinely hypoxic conditions for stemness and tissue renewal. Later work (2020–2026) has mapped only the HIF oxygen-sensing component phylogenetically, produced small adjacent physiology studies on cnidarian embryos and larvae, sponges, and nematodes, and tested the framework's geological consistency, but no comprehensive comparative account or empirical determination of invertebrate hypoxia dependence exists. The problem is open.

Background

Tissue renewal in multicellular animals depends on stem cells, and a large experimental literature in mammals shows that stem-cell maintenance and several phases of embryogenesis function best at oxygen concentrations far below atmospheric levels — roughly 1–5% rather than 21%. This creates what the source paper calls the paradox of oxygen-sensitive tissue renewal: oxygen is the final electron acceptor of aerobic respiration and is required by all animals, yet elevated oxygen promotes differentiation, chromatin condensation, and oxidative damage that challenge the maintenance of unspecialized, self-renewing cells. Hammarlund (2020, Interface Focus) argued that the rise of complex multicellularity in the Neoproterozoic and early Paleozoic eras (roughly 600–450 million years ago, when atmospheric oxygen was likely well below modern levels) was enabled by organisms 'harnessing' hypoxia — internalizing or manufacturing low-oxygen conditions — so that they could leave stable, low-oxygen ancestral niches and colonize settings where oxygen fluctuates. The paper identifies four candidate solutions to oxic living: (i) oxygen gradients, meaning anatomical and vascular arrangements that keep low-oxygen microenvironments inside tissues (as in vertebrate haematopoietic and other stem-cell niches); (ii) fast cell fate turnover, meaning tissue plasticity and continuous cell-fate interconversion so rapid that tissue renewal outruns environmental oxygen signalling (as implicated in some invertebrate regeneration); (iii) hypoxia-response machinery, meaning the molecular system centred on hypoxia-inducible factors (HIFs) — transcription factors that are degraded via oxygen-dependent enzymes (prolyl hydroxylases) when oxygen is plentiful and stabilized under hypoxia, switching cells to hypoxic gene-expression programs; and (iv) pseudohypoxia, meaning constitutive activation of hypoxia-response programs even under oxic conditions (for example HIF-2-driven programs emphasized in vertebrates), which permits stemness to persist in oxygenated tissue at the price of cancer risk. The framework rests on established facts: hypoxia supports vertebrate stemness and early embryogenesis; HIF-1α occurs in all animals except sponges and ctenophores; the geological timing of oxygenation is debated and can be argued to be uncoupled from animal and plant diversification. What the source paper itself declares unresolved, in its closing 'several unknowns' paragraph, is: that no comprehensive overview of the mechanisms curbing the paradox of oxygen-sensitive tissue renewal exists; that the framework does not address how the solutions could have been shared or evolved in parallel while animals, plants, and algae diversified within a short geological timespan; and that we have 'not asked or determined whether invertebrates maintain dependency on truly hypoxic conditions' — the paper's own reasoning implying that invertebrates remain coupled to truly hypoxic conditions for their livelihood, a claim that has never been tested.

Problem Statement

Determine how multicellular organisms resolve the paradox of oxygen-sensitive tissue renewal, in the integrated form the source paper left open. The overarching objective is to test the 'harnessing hypoxia' framework by producing one coherent account that: (a) assembles the missing comprehensive overview of the mechanisms in multicellular organisms that curb the paradox of oxygen-sensitive tissue renewal, covering the four candidate solutions — internal oxygen gradients, fast cell fate turnover, hypoxia-response machinery, and pseudohypoxia — across animals, plants, and algae; (b) resolves, for each of these four solution classes, whether it was shared (inherited from common ancestry) or evolved in parallel independently in different lineages during the rapid diversification of the three clades, with the comparative phylogenetic, developmental, and physiological evidence for each verdict; and (c) determines empirically whether invertebrates maintain an obligatory dependence on genuinely hypoxic conditions for stemness and tissue renewal — as opposed to merely tolerating hypoxia or regulating access to it. Within (c), 'genuinely hypoxic' means the low-oxygen range described in the Background (roughly 1–5% rather than atmospheric 21%), and obligatory dependence is satisfied when stemness and tissue renewal require that range, including when the low oxygen is generated internally through the oxygen-gradient arrangements of solution class (i), whereas lineages that merely tolerate hypoxia or regulate access to it are those whose tissue renewal also proceeds under normoxia. Where canonical stem cells are absent, stemness and tissue renewal are understood as the maintenance and replenishment of self-renewing cell populations that support tissue reconstitution.

References

  1. Emma U. Hammarlund (2020). Harnessing hypoxia as an evolutionary driver of complex multicellularity. Interface Focus 10(4):20190101. DOI: 10.1098/rsfs.2019.0101. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2019.0101 (source of the open question)
  2. Emma U. Hammarlund; Emily Flashman; Sofie Mohlin; Francesco Licausi (2020). Oxygen-sensing mechanisms across eukaryotic kingdoms and their roles in complex multicellularity. Science 370(6516):eaba3512. DOI: 10.1126/science.aba3512. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba3512
  3. Bing Song; Luca David Modjewski; Nils Kapust; Itzhak Mizrahi; William F. Martin (2022). The origin and distribution of the main oxygen sensing mechanism across metazoans. Frontiers in Physiology 13:977391. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2022.977391. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.977391
  4. Flavia A. Belato; Beatriz Mello; Christopher J. Coates; Kenneth M. Halanych; Federico D. Brown; André C. Morandini; Juliana de Moraes Leme; Ricardo I. F. Trindade; Elisa Maria Costa-Paiva (2023). Divergence time estimates for the hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha (HIF1α) reveal an ancient emergence of animals in low-oxygen environments. Geobiology 22(1):e12577. DOI: 10.1111/gbi.12577. https://doi.org/10.1111/gbi.12577
  5. Sen Hadife; Hongdi Wang; Yayoi Hongo; Hiroshi Watanabe (2026). Hypoxia-induced gene expression changes in N. vectensis embryos. Scientific Reports 16:14315. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-026-44143-x. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-44143-x
  6. Benjamin H. Glass; Katie L. Barott (2025). Hypoxia disrupts metabolism in coral and sea anemone larvae. Journal of Experimental Biology 228(12):jeb250372. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.250372. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.250372
  7. Lars Kumala; Malte Thomsen; Donald E. Canfield (2026). Oxygen regulation in the earliest animals: spatiotemporal resolution of oxygen dynamics in single-osculum Halichondria panicea and Haliclona rosea sponges. Frontiers in Physiology 17:1849630. DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2026.1849630. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2026.1849630
  8. Emma R. Haxen; Mazharul Islam; Alexandra Grabowski; Sofie Mohlin; Nicole R. Posth; Sandeep Gopal; Emma U. Hammarlund (2026). Ecologically relevant low oxygen levels reduce unfertilized oocyte output in Caenorhabditis elegans. microPublication Biology. DOI: 10.17912/micropub.biology.002266. https://doi.org/10.17912/micropub.biology.002266
  9. Emma R. Haxen; Niels H. Schovsbo; Arne T. Nielsen; Sylvain Richoz; David K. Loydell; Nicole R. Posth; Donald E. Canfield; Emma U. Hammarlund (2023). 'Hypoxic' Silurian oceans suggest early animals thrived in a low-O2 world. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 622:118416. DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2023.118416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2023.118416
  10. Emma U. Hammarlund; Anuraag Bukkuri; Magnus D. Norling; Mazharul Islam; Nicole R. Posth; Etienne Baratchart; Christopher Carroll; Sarah R. Amend; Robert A. Gatenby; Kenneth J. Pienta; Joel S. Brown; Shanan E. Peters; Kasper Hancke (2025). Benthic diel oxygen variability and stress as potential drivers for animal diversification in the Neoproterozoic-Palaeozoic. Nature Communications 16:2223. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-57345-0. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-57345-0
  11. Emily Carlisle; Zongjun Yin; Davide Pisani; Philip C. J. Donoghue (2024). Ediacaran origin and Ediacaran-Cambrian diversification of Metazoa. Science Advances 10(46):eadp7161. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adp7161. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adp7161
  12. Emma U. Hammarlund (2025). Sox as a Functionally Conserved Link Between Unicellular Ancestors and Human Stem Cell Control. Cellular Reprogramming 27(2):53-55. DOI: 10.1089/cell.2025.0011. https://doi.org/10.1089/cell.2025.0011