Ctenophore relationships and their placement as the sister group to all other animals (original) (raw)

References

1. Hyman, L. The Invertebrates Vol. 1 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1940).
2. Mackie, G. O., Mills, C. E. & Singla, C. L. Structure and function of the prehensile tentialla of Euplokamis (Ctenophora, Cydippida). Zoomorphology 107, 319–337 (1988).
   Article Google Scholar
3. Moroz, L. L. et al. The ctenophore genome and the evolutionary origins of neural systems. Nature 510, 109–114 (2014).
   Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
4. Roohi, A. et al. Changes in biodiversity of phytoplanton, zooplankton, fishes and macrobenthos in the Southern Caspian Sea after the invasion of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi. Biol. Invasions 12, 2342–2361 (2010).
   Article Google Scholar
5. Ryan, J. F. et al. The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution. Science 342, 1242592 (2013).
   Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
6. Harbison, G. R. in The Origins and Relationships of Lower Invertebrates (eds Morris, S. C., George, J. D., Gibson, R. & Platt, H. M.) 78–100 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1985).
7. Dunn, C. W., Leys, S. & Haddock, S. H. D. The hidden biology of sponges and ctenophores. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 282–291 (2015).
   Article PubMed Google Scholar
8. Whelan, N. V., Kocot, K. M. & Halanych, K. M. Employing phylogenomics to resolve the relationships among cnidarians, ctenophores, sponges, placozoans and bilaterians. Integr. Comp. Biol. 55, 1084–1095 (2015).
   Article PubMed Google Scholar
9. Dunn, C. W. et al. Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature 452, 745–749 (2008).
   Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
10. Hejnol, A. et al. Assessing the root of bilaterian animals with scalable phylogenomic models. Proc. Biol. Sci. 276, 4261–4270 (2009).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
11. Whelan, N. V., Kocot, K. M., Moroz, L. L. & Halanych, K. M. Error, signal, and the placement of Ctenophora sister to all other animals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 5773–2778 (2015).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
12. Podar, M., Haddock, S. H. D., Sogin, M. L. & Harbison, G. R. A molecular phylogenetic framework for the phylum Ctenophora using 18S rRNA genes. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 21, 218–230 (2001).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
13. Simion, P., Bekkouche, N., Jager, M., Quéinnec, E. & Manuel, M. Exploring the potential of small RNA subunit and ITS sequences for resolving the phylogenetic relationships within the phylum Ctenophora. Zoology 118, 102–114 (2015).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
14. Tang, F., Bengtson, S., Wang, Y., Wang, X.-l. & Yin, C.-Y. Eoandromeda and the origin of Ctenophora. Evol. Dev. 13, 408–414 (2011).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
15. Morris, S. C. & Collins, D. H. Middle Cambiran ctenophores from Stephen Formation British Columbia, Canada. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 351, 279–308 (1996).
    Article Google Scholar
16. Chen, J.-Y. et al. Raman spectra of a Lower Cambrian ctenophore embryo from southwestern Shaanxi, China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci USA 104, 6289–6292 (1997).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
17. Mills, C. E. Revised classification of the genus Euplokamis Chun, 1880 (Ctenophora: Cydippida: Euplokamidae n. fam.) with a description of the new species Euplokamis dunlapae. Can. J. Zool. 65, 2661–2668 (1987).
    Article Google Scholar
18. Harbison, G. R. & Miller, R. L. Not all ctenophores are hermaphrodites. Studies on the sytematics, distribution, sexuality and development of two species of Ocyropsis. Mar. Biol. 90, 413–424 (1986).
    Article Google Scholar
19. Uyeno, D., Lasley, R. M., Moore, J. M. & Berumen, M. L. New records of Lobatolampea tetragona (Ctenophora: Lobata: Lobatolampeidae) from the Red Sea. Mar. Biodivers. Rec. 8, e33 (2015).
    Article Google Scholar
20. Pisani, D. et al. Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 15402–15407 (2015).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
21. Simion, P. et al. A large and consistent phylogenomic dataset supports sponges as the sister group to all other animals. Curr. Biol. 27, 958–967 (2017).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
22. Halanych, K. M., Whelan, N. V., Kocot, K. M., Kohn, A. B. & Moroz, L. L. Miscues misplace sponges. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E946–E949 (2016).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
23. Moroz, L. L. & Halanych, K. M. A sisterly dispute: methodological misconceptions. Nature 529, 286–287 (2016).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
24. Whelan, N. V. & Halanych, K. M. Who let the CAT out of the bag? Accurately dealing with subtitutional heterogeneity in phylogenomics analyses. Syst. Biol. 66, 232–255 (2017).
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
25. Arcila, D. et al. Genome-wide interrogation advances resolution of recalcitrant groups in the tree of life. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0020 (2017).
    Article Google Scholar
26. Shen, X.-X., Hittinger, C. T. & Rokas, A. Contentious relationships in phylogenomic studies can be driven by a handful of genes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0126 (2017).
    Article Google Scholar
27. Heath, T. A., Hedtke, S. M. & Hillis, D. M. Taxon sampling and the accuracy of phylogenetic analyses. J. Syst. Evol. 46, 239–257 (2008).
    Google Scholar
28. Hedtke, S. M., Townsend, T. M. & Hillis, D. M. Resolution of phylogenetic conflict in large data sets by increased taxon sampling. Syst. Biol. 55, 522–529 (2006).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
29. Zwickl, D. J. & Hillis, D. M. Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst. Biol. 51, 588–598 (2002).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
30. Benton, M. J. & Twitchett, R. J. How to kill (almost all life): the end-Permian extinctoin event. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 358–365 (2003).
    Article Google Scholar
31. Lartillot, N. & Philippe, H. A Bayesian mixture model for across-site heterogeneities in the amino-acid replacement process. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21, 1095–1109 (2004).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
32. Steinmetz, P. R. H. et al. Independent evolution of striated muscles in cnidarians and bilaterians. Nature 487, 231–234 (2012).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
33. Martindale, M. Q. in Atlas of Marine Invertebrate Larvae (eds Young, C. M., Sewell, M. A. & Rice, M. E.) 109–122 (Academic Press, Cambridge, MA, 2002).
34. Rigby, S. & Milsom, C. Benthic origins of zooplankton: an environmentaly determined macroevolutionary effect. Geology 24, 52–54 (1996).
    Article Google Scholar
35. Haddock, S. H. D. & Case, J. F. Not all ctenophores are bioluminescent: Pleurobrachia. Biol. Bull. 189, 356–362 (1995).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
36. Widder, E. A. Bioluminescence in the ocean: origins of biological, chemical, and ecological diversity. Science 328, 704–708 (2010).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
37. Gershwin, L.-A., Zeidler, W. & Davie, P. J. F. Ctenophora of Australia. Mem. Queensl. Mus. 54, 1–45 (2010).
    Google Scholar
38. Haddock, S. H. D. Comparative feeding behaviour of planktonic ctenophores. Integr. Comp. Biol. 47, 847–853 (2007).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
39. Moroz, L. L. Covergent evolution of neural systems in ctenophores. J. Exp. Biol. 218, 598–611 (2015).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
40. Moroz, L. L. & Kohn, A. B. Independent origins of neurons and synapses: insights from ctenophores. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 371, 20150041 (2016).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
41. Borowiec, M. L., Lee, E. K., Chiu, J. C. & Plachetzki, D. C. Extracting phylogenetic signal and accounting for bias in whole-genome data sets supports the Ctenophora as sister to remaining Metazoa. BMC Genomics 16, 987 (2015).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
42. Cannon, J. T. et al. Xenacoelomorpha is the sister group to Nephrozoa. Nature 530, 89–93 (2016).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
43. Chang, E. S. et al. Genomic insights into the evolutionary origin of Myxozoa within Cnidaria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 14912–14917 (2015).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
44. Nabhan, A. R. & Sarkar, I. N. The impact of taxon sampling on phylogenetic inference: a review of two decades of controversy. Brief. Bioinformatics 13, 122–134 (2011).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
45. Brown, T., Howe, C., Zhang, A., Pyrkosz, Q. & Brom, A. B. A reference-free algorithm for computational normalization of shotgun sequencing data. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4802 (2012).
    Google Scholar
46. Haas, B. J. et al. De novo transcript sequence reconstruction from RNA-seq using the Trinity platform for reference generation and analysis. Nat. Protoc. 8, 1494–1512 (2013).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
47. Ebersberger, I., Strauss, S. & von Haeseler, A. HaMStR: profile hidden Markov model based search for orthologs in ESTs. BMC Evol. Biol. 9, 157 (2009).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
48. Altschul, S. F. et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 3389–3402 (1997).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
49. Li, L., Stoeckert, C. J. & Roos, D. S. OrthoMCL: identification of ortholog groups for eukaryotic genomes. Genome Res. 13, 2178–2189 (2003).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
50. Kocot, K. M. et al. Phylogenomics of Lophotrochozoa with consideration of systematic error. Syst. Biol. 66, 256–282 (2017).
    CAS PubMed Google Scholar
51. Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 772–780 (2013).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
52. Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. FastTree 2—approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS ONE 5, e9490 (2010).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
53. Kocot, K. M., Citarella, M. R., Moroz, L. L. & Halanych, K. M. PhyloTreePruner: a phylogenetic tree-based approach for selection of orthologous sequences for phylogenomics. Evol. Bioinform. 9, 429–435 (2013).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
54. Finn, R. D., Clements, J. & Eddy, S. R. HMMER web server: interactive sequence similarity searching. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, W29–W37 (2011).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
55. Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30, 1312–1313 (2014).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
56. Struck, T. H. TreSpEx—detection of misleading signal in phylogenetic reconstructions based on tree information. Evol. Bioinform. 10, 51–67 (2014).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
57. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing http://www.R-project.org/ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2015).
58. Zhong, M. et al. Detecting the symplesiomorphy trap: a multigene phylogenetic analysis of terebelliform annelids. BMC Evol. Biol. 11, 369 (2011).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
59. Kück, P. & Struck, T. H. BaCoCa—a heuristic software tool for the parallel assessment of sequence biases in hundreds of gene and taxon partitions. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 70, 94–98 (2014).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
60. Lartillot, N., Rodrigue, N., Stubbs, D. & Richer, J. PhyloBayes MPI: phylogenetic reconstruction with infinite mixtures of profiles in a parallel environment. Syst. Biol. 62, 611–615 (2013).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
61. Nosenko, T. et al. Deep metazoan phylogeny: when different genes tell different stories. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 67, 223–233 (2013).
    Article Google Scholar
62. Brown, J. M. & Lemmon, A. R. The importance of data partitioning and the utility of Bayes factors in Bayesian phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 56, 643–655 (2007).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
63. Lanfear, R., Frandsen, P. B., Wright, A. M., Senfeld, T. & Calcott, B. PartitionFinder 2: new methods for selecting partitioned models of evolution for molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses. Mol. Biol. Evol., 34, 772–773 (2016).
    Google Scholar
64. Lanfear, R., Calcott, B., Kainer, D., Mayer, C. & Stamatakis, A. Selecting optimal partitioning schemes for phylogenomic datasets. BMC Evol. Biol. 14, 82 (2014).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
65. Jékely, G., Paps, J. & Nielsen, C. The phylogenetic position of ctenophores and the origin(s) of nervous systems. EvoDevo 6, 1 (2015).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
66. Bouckaert, R. et al. BEAST 2: A software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 10, e1003537 (2014).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
67. Rice, P., Longden, I. & Bleasby, A. EMBOSS: the European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite. Trends Genet. 16, 276–277 (2000).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
68. Duchêne, S., Molak, M. & Ho, S. Y. W. ClockstaR: choosing the number of relaxed-clock models in molecular phylogenetic analysis. Bioinformatics 30, 1017–1019 (2014).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
69. Drummond, A. J., Ho, S. Y. W., Phillips, M. J. & Rambaut, A. Relaxed phylogenetics and dating with confidence. PLoS Biol. 4, e88 (2006).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
70. Dos Reis, M. et al. Uncertainty in the timing of origin of animals and the limits of precision in molecular timescales. Curr. Biol. 25, 29392950 (2015).
    Google Scholar
71. Brusca, R. C., Moore, W. & Shuster, S. M. in Invertebrates 3rd edn 1104 (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, 2016).
72. Eechkaut, I., Flammang, P., Bue, C. L. & Jangoux, M. Functional morphology of the tentacles and tentilla of Coeloplana bannworthi (Ctenophora, Platyctenida), and ectosymbiont of Diadema setosum (Echinodermata, Echinoida). Zoomorphology 117, 165–174 (1997).
    Article Google Scholar
73. Harbison, G. R. & Madin, L. P. in Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms (ed. Parker, S. P.) 707–715 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982).
74. Horita, T. An undescribed lobate ctenophore, Lobatolampea tetragona gen. nov. & spec. nov., representing a new family, from Japan. Zool. Meded. 73, 457–464 (2000).
    Google Scholar
75. Matsumoto, G. I. & Harbison, G. R. In situ observations of foraging, feeding, and escape behavior in three orders of oceanic ctenophores: Lobata, Cestida, and Beroida. Mar. Biol. 117, 279–287 (1993).
    Article Google Scholar
76. Purcell, J. E., Sturdevant, M. V. & Galt, C. P. Response of Marine Ecosystems to Global Change: Ecological Impact of Appendicularians (eds Gorsky, G., Yongbluth, M. J. & Deibel, D.) 359–435 (GB Science Publishers-Editions Scientifiques, Paris, 2005).
77. Stretch, J. J. Observations on the abundance and feeding behavior of the cestid ctenophore. Velamen Parallelum. Bull. Mar. Sci. 32, 796–799 (1982).
    Google Scholar
78. Blomberg, S. P., Garland, T. Jr & Ives, A. R. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57, 717–745 (2003).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
79. Revell, L. J. Phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 217–223 (2012).
    Article Google Scholar
80. Huelsenbeck, J. P., Nielsen, R. & Bollback, J. P. Stochastic mapping of morphological characters. Syst. Biol. 52, 131–158 (2003).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
81. Nielsen, R. Mapping mutations on phylogenies. Syst. Biol. 51, 729–739 (2002).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
82. Paradis, E., Claude, J. & Strimmer, K. APE: analysis of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20, 289–290 (2004).
83. Harmon, L. J., Weir, J. T., Brock, C. D., Glor, R. E. & Challenger, W. GEIGER: investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics 24, 129–131 (2008).
    Google Scholar

Download references