Chaetognath phylogenomics: a protostome with deuterostome-like development

Current Biology

Volumn 16, Issue 15, 2006, Pages

  Marlétaz, Ferdinand ^a   Martin, Elise ^a   Perez, Yvan ^b   Papillon, Daniel ^a,g   Caubit, Xavier ^c   Lowe, Christopher J ^d   Freeman, Bob ^e   Fasano, Laurent ^c   Dossat, Carole ^f   Wincker, Patrick ^f   Weissenbach, Jean ^f   Le Parco, Yannick ^a  

^a STATION MARINE D ENDOUME   (France)

^b AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

^c AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^e HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^f CENTRE NATIONAL DE SÉQUENÇAGE   (France)

^g UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

RIBOSOME PROTEIN;

ANIMAL; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOLOGY; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DNA SEQUENCE; EXPRESSED SEQUENCE TAG; GENETICS; GENOMICS; INVERTEBRATE; LETTER; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR GENETICS; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; BASE SEQUENCE; BAYES THEOREM; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; EXPRESSED SEQUENCE TAGS; GENOMICS; INVERTEBRATES; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, GENETIC; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; PHYLOGENY; RIBOSOMAL PROTEINS; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

DEUTEROSTOMIA; PROTOSTOMIA;

EID: 33746545695     PISSN: 09609822     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.07.016     Document Type: Letter

References (12)

1. Adoutte A., Balavoine G., Lartillot N., Lespinet O., Prud'homme B., and de Rosa R. The new animal phylogeny: reliability and implications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97 (2000) 4453-4456
2. Halanych K.M., Bacheller J.D., Aguinaldo A.M., Liva S.M., Hillis D.M., and Lake J.A. Evidence from 18S ribosomal DNA that the lophophorates are protostome animals. Science 267 (1995) 1641-1643
3. Telford M.J., and Holland P.W. The phylogenetic affinities of the chaetognaths: a molecular analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10 (1993) 660-676
4. Papillon D., Perez Y., Caubit X., and Le Parco Y. Identification of chaetognaths as protostomes is supported by the analysis of their mitochondrial genome. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21 (2004) 2122-2129
5. Kortschak R.D., Samuel G., Saint R., and Miller D.J. EST analysis of the cnidarian Acropora millepora reveals extensive gene loss and rapid sequence divergence in the model invertebrates. Curr. Biol. 13 (2003) 2190-2195
6. Philippe H., Lartillot N., and Brinkmann H. Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Protostomia. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22 (2005) 1246-1253
7. Jeffroy O., Brinkmann H., Delsuc F., and Philippe H. Phylogenomics: the beginning of incongruence?. Trends Genet. 22 (2006) 225-231
8. Matus D.Q., Copley R.R., Dunn C.W., Hejnol A., Eccleston H., Halanych K.M., Martindale M.Q., and Telford M. Broad taxon sampling and Gene Sampling Indicate that Chaetognaths are Sister to Lophotrochozoans. Curr. Biol. 16 (2006) R575-R576
9. Delsuc F., Brinkmann H., Chourrout D., and Philippe H. Tunicates and not cephalochordates are the closest living relatives of vertebrates. Nature 439 (2006) 965-968
10. Wolf Y.I., Rogozin I.B., and Koonin E.V. Coelomata and not Ecdysozoa: evidence from genome-wide phylogenetic analysis. Genome Res. 14 (2004) 29-36
11. Rokas A., Kruger D., and Carroll S.B. Animal evolution and the molecular signature of radiations compressed in time. Science 310 (2005) 1933-1938
12. Valentine J.W. Cleavage patterns and the topology of the metazoan tree of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94 (1997) 8001-8005