Cargando…

New phylogenomic data support the monophyly of Lophophorata and an Ectoproct-Phoronid clade and indicate that Polyzoa and Kryptrochozoa are caused by systematic bias

BACKGROUND: Within the complex metazoan phylogeny, the relationships of the three lophophorate lineages, ectoprocts, brachiopods and phoronids, are particularly elusive. To shed further light on this issue, we present phylogenomic analyses of 196 genes from 58 bilaterian taxa, paying particular atte...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nesnidal, Maximilian P, Helmkampf, Martin, Meyer, Achim, Witek, Alexander, Bruchhaus, Iris, Ebersberger, Ingo, Hankeln, Thomas, Lieb, Bernhard, Struck, Torsten H, Hausdorf, Bernhard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24238092
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-13-253
_version_ 1782343548618670080
author Nesnidal, Maximilian P
Helmkampf, Martin
Meyer, Achim
Witek, Alexander
Bruchhaus, Iris
Ebersberger, Ingo
Hankeln, Thomas
Lieb, Bernhard
Struck, Torsten H
Hausdorf, Bernhard
author_facet Nesnidal, Maximilian P
Helmkampf, Martin
Meyer, Achim
Witek, Alexander
Bruchhaus, Iris
Ebersberger, Ingo
Hankeln, Thomas
Lieb, Bernhard
Struck, Torsten H
Hausdorf, Bernhard
author_sort Nesnidal, Maximilian P
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Within the complex metazoan phylogeny, the relationships of the three lophophorate lineages, ectoprocts, brachiopods and phoronids, are particularly elusive. To shed further light on this issue, we present phylogenomic analyses of 196 genes from 58 bilaterian taxa, paying particular attention to the influence of compositional heterogeneity. RESULTS: The phylogenetic analyses strongly support the monophyly of Lophophorata and a sister-group relationship between Ectoprocta and Phoronida. Our results contrast previous findings based on rDNA sequences and phylogenomic datasets which supported monophyletic Polyzoa (= Bryozoa sensu lato) including Ectoprocta, Entoprocta and Cycliophora, Brachiozoa including Brachiopoda and Phoronida as well as Kryptrochozoa including Brachiopoda, Phoronida and Nemertea, thus rendering Lophophorata polyphyletic. Our attempts to identify the causes for the conflicting results revealed that Polyzoa, Brachiozoa and Kryptrochozoa are supported by character subsets with deviating amino acid compositions, whereas there is no indication for compositional heterogeneity in the character subsets supporting the monophyly of Lophophorata. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the support for Polyzoa, Brachiozoa and Kryptrochozoa gathered so far is likely an artifact caused by compositional bias. The monophyly of Lophophorata implies that the horseshoe-shaped mesosomal lophophore, the tentacular feeding apparatus of ectoprocts, phoronids and brachiopods is, indeed, a synapomorphy of the lophophorate lineages. The same may apply to radial cleavage. However, among phoronids also spiral cleavage is known. This suggests that the cleavage pattern is highly plastic and has changed several times within lophophorates. The sister group relationship of ectoprocts and phoronids is in accordance with the interpretation of the eversion of a ventral invagination at the beginning of metamorphosis as a common derived feature of these taxa.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4225663
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42256632014-11-11 New phylogenomic data support the monophyly of Lophophorata and an Ectoproct-Phoronid clade and indicate that Polyzoa and Kryptrochozoa are caused by systematic bias Nesnidal, Maximilian P Helmkampf, Martin Meyer, Achim Witek, Alexander Bruchhaus, Iris Ebersberger, Ingo Hankeln, Thomas Lieb, Bernhard Struck, Torsten H Hausdorf, Bernhard BMC Evol Biol Research Article BACKGROUND: Within the complex metazoan phylogeny, the relationships of the three lophophorate lineages, ectoprocts, brachiopods and phoronids, are particularly elusive. To shed further light on this issue, we present phylogenomic analyses of 196 genes from 58 bilaterian taxa, paying particular attention to the influence of compositional heterogeneity. RESULTS: The phylogenetic analyses strongly support the monophyly of Lophophorata and a sister-group relationship between Ectoprocta and Phoronida. Our results contrast previous findings based on rDNA sequences and phylogenomic datasets which supported monophyletic Polyzoa (= Bryozoa sensu lato) including Ectoprocta, Entoprocta and Cycliophora, Brachiozoa including Brachiopoda and Phoronida as well as Kryptrochozoa including Brachiopoda, Phoronida and Nemertea, thus rendering Lophophorata polyphyletic. Our attempts to identify the causes for the conflicting results revealed that Polyzoa, Brachiozoa and Kryptrochozoa are supported by character subsets with deviating amino acid compositions, whereas there is no indication for compositional heterogeneity in the character subsets supporting the monophyly of Lophophorata. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the support for Polyzoa, Brachiozoa and Kryptrochozoa gathered so far is likely an artifact caused by compositional bias. The monophyly of Lophophorata implies that the horseshoe-shaped mesosomal lophophore, the tentacular feeding apparatus of ectoprocts, phoronids and brachiopods is, indeed, a synapomorphy of the lophophorate lineages. The same may apply to radial cleavage. However, among phoronids also spiral cleavage is known. This suggests that the cleavage pattern is highly plastic and has changed several times within lophophorates. The sister group relationship of ectoprocts and phoronids is in accordance with the interpretation of the eversion of a ventral invagination at the beginning of metamorphosis as a common derived feature of these taxa. BioMed Central 2013-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4225663/ /pubmed/24238092 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-13-253 Text en Copyright © 2013 Nesnidal et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Nesnidal, Maximilian P
Helmkampf, Martin
Meyer, Achim
Witek, Alexander
Bruchhaus, Iris
Ebersberger, Ingo
Hankeln, Thomas
Lieb, Bernhard
Struck, Torsten H
Hausdorf, Bernhard
New phylogenomic data support the monophyly of Lophophorata and an Ectoproct-Phoronid clade and indicate that Polyzoa and Kryptrochozoa are caused by systematic bias
title New phylogenomic data support the monophyly of Lophophorata and an Ectoproct-Phoronid clade and indicate that Polyzoa and Kryptrochozoa are caused by systematic bias
title_full New phylogenomic data support the monophyly of Lophophorata and an Ectoproct-Phoronid clade and indicate that Polyzoa and Kryptrochozoa are caused by systematic bias
title_fullStr New phylogenomic data support the monophyly of Lophophorata and an Ectoproct-Phoronid clade and indicate that Polyzoa and Kryptrochozoa are caused by systematic bias
title_full_unstemmed New phylogenomic data support the monophyly of Lophophorata and an Ectoproct-Phoronid clade and indicate that Polyzoa and Kryptrochozoa are caused by systematic bias
title_short New phylogenomic data support the monophyly of Lophophorata and an Ectoproct-Phoronid clade and indicate that Polyzoa and Kryptrochozoa are caused by systematic bias
title_sort new phylogenomic data support the monophyly of lophophorata and an ectoproct-phoronid clade and indicate that polyzoa and kryptrochozoa are caused by systematic bias
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24238092
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-13-253
work_keys_str_mv AT nesnidalmaximilianp newphylogenomicdatasupportthemonophylyoflophophorataandanectoproctphoronidcladeandindicatethatpolyzoaandkryptrochozoaarecausedbysystematicbias
AT helmkampfmartin newphylogenomicdatasupportthemonophylyoflophophorataandanectoproctphoronidcladeandindicatethatpolyzoaandkryptrochozoaarecausedbysystematicbias
AT meyerachim newphylogenomicdatasupportthemonophylyoflophophorataandanectoproctphoronidcladeandindicatethatpolyzoaandkryptrochozoaarecausedbysystematicbias
AT witekalexander newphylogenomicdatasupportthemonophylyoflophophorataandanectoproctphoronidcladeandindicatethatpolyzoaandkryptrochozoaarecausedbysystematicbias
AT bruchhausiris newphylogenomicdatasupportthemonophylyoflophophorataandanectoproctphoronidcladeandindicatethatpolyzoaandkryptrochozoaarecausedbysystematicbias
AT ebersbergeringo newphylogenomicdatasupportthemonophylyoflophophorataandanectoproctphoronidcladeandindicatethatpolyzoaandkryptrochozoaarecausedbysystematicbias
AT hankelnthomas newphylogenomicdatasupportthemonophylyoflophophorataandanectoproctphoronidcladeandindicatethatpolyzoaandkryptrochozoaarecausedbysystematicbias
AT liebbernhard newphylogenomicdatasupportthemonophylyoflophophorataandanectoproctphoronidcladeandindicatethatpolyzoaandkryptrochozoaarecausedbysystematicbias
AT strucktorstenh newphylogenomicdatasupportthemonophylyoflophophorataandanectoproctphoronidcladeandindicatethatpolyzoaandkryptrochozoaarecausedbysystematicbias
AT hausdorfbernhard newphylogenomicdatasupportthemonophylyoflophophorataandanectoproctphoronidcladeandindicatethatpolyzoaandkryptrochozoaarecausedbysystematicbias