Large-scale sequencing and the new animal phylogeny

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 21, Issue 11, 2006, Pages 614-620

  Philippe, Hervé ^a   Telford, Maximilian J ^b  

^a Universite de Montreal   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; GENE EXPRESSION; NEW SPECIES; PHYLOGENETICS; PHYLOGENY; STOCHASTICITY;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; DNA SEQUENCE; EXPRESSED SEQUENCE TAG; GENOMICS; PHYLOGENY; SAMPLE SIZE;

ANIMALS; EXPRESSED SEQUENCE TAGS; GENOMICS; PHYLOGENY; SAMPLE SIZE; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 33749516796     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.08.004     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Halanych K.M., et al. Evidence from 18S ribosomal DNA that the lophophorates are protostome animals. Science 267 (1995) 1641-1643
2. Aguinaldo A.M., et al. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods and other moulting animals. Nature 387 (1997) 489-493
3. Halanych K.M. The new view of animal phylogeny. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35 (2004) 229-256
4. Adoutte A., et al. The new animal phylogeny: reliability and implications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97 (2000) 4453-4456
5. de Rosa R., et al. Hox genes in brachiopods and priapulids and protostome evolution. Nature 399 (1999) 772-776
6. Haase A., et al. A tissue-specific marker of Ecdysozoa. Dev. Genes Evol. 211 (2001) 428-433
7. Ruiz-Trillo I., et al. A phylogenetic analysis of myosin heavy chain type II sequences corroborates that Acoela and Nemertodermatida are basal bilaterians. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99 (2002) 11246-11251
8. Hausdorf B. Early evolution of the bilateria. Syst. Biol. 49 (2000) 130-142
9. Dacks J.B., et al. Analyses of RNA Polymerase II genes from free-living protists: phylogeny, long-branch attraction, and the eukaryotic big bang. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19 (2002) 830-840
10. Horner D.S., and Embley T.M. Chaperonin 60 phylogeny provides further evidence for secondary loss of mitochondria among putative early-branching eukaryotes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18 (2001) 1970-1975
11. Philip G.K., et al. The Opisthokonta and the Ecdysozoa may not be clades: stronger support for the grouping of plant and animal than for animal and fungi and stronger support for the Coelomata than Ecdysozoa. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22 (2005) 1175-1184
12. Rokas A., et al. Conflicting phylogenetic signals at the base of the metazoan tree. Evol. Dev. 5 (2003) 346-359
13. Blair J.E., et al. The evolutionary position of nematodes. BMC Evol. Biol. 2 (2002) 7
14. Dopazo H., et al. Phylogenomics and the number of characters required for obtaining an accurate phylogeny of eukaryote model species. Bioinformatics 20 (2004) i116-i121
15. Wolf Y.I., et al. Coelomata and not ecdysozoa: evidence from genome-wide phylogenetic analysis. Genome Res. 14 (2004) 29-36
16. Blair J.E., et al. Evolutionary sequence analysis of complete eukaryote genomes. BMC Bioinform. 6 (2005) 53
17. Philippe H., et al. Phylogenomics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 36 (2005) 541-562
18. Felsenstein J. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27 (1978) 401-410
19. Philippe H., et al. Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Protostomia. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22 (2005) 1246-1253
20. Field K.G., et al. Molecular phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom. Science 239 (1988) 748-753
21. Philippe H., et al. Can the Cambrian explosion be inferred through molecular phylogeny?. Development 120 (1994) S15-S25
22. Hendy M.D., and Penny D. A framework for the quantitative study of evolutionary trees. Syst. Zool. 38 (1989) 297-309
23. Peterson K.J., and Eernisse D.J. Animal phylogeny and the ancestry of bilaterians: inferences from morphology and 18S rDNA gene sequences. Evol. Dev. 3 (2001) 170-205
24. Delsuc F., et al. Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6 (2005) 361-375
25. Dopazo H., and Dopazo J. Genome-scale evidence of the nematode-arthropod clade. Genome Biol. 6 (2005) R41
26. Roy S.W., and Gilbert W. Resolution of a deep animal divergence by the pattern of intron conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 102 (2005) 4403-4408
27. Lartillot, N. et al. Suppression of long-branch attraction artefacts in the animal phylogeny using a site-heterogeneous model. BMC Evol. Biol. (in press)
28. Hillis D.M., et al. Is sparse taxon sampling a problem for phylogenetic inference?. Syst. Biol. 52 (2003) 124-126
29. Hughes J., et al. Dense taxonomic EST sampling and its applications for molecular systematics of the Coleoptera (beetles). Mol. Biol. Evol. 23 (2006) 268-278
30. Mitreva M., et al. Comparative genomics of nematodes. Trends Genet. 21 (2005) 573-581
31. Delsuc F., et al. Tunicates and not cephalochordates are the closest living relatives of vertebrates. Nature 439 (2006) 965-968
32. Bapteste E., et al. The analysis of 100 genes supports the grouping of three highly divergent amoebae: Dictyostelium, Entamoeba, and Mastigamoeba. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 99 (2002) 1414-1419
33. Philippe H., et al. Phylogenomics of eukaryotes: impact of missing data on large alignments. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21 (2004) 1740-1752
34. Brinkmann H., et al. An empirical assessment of long-branch attraction artefacts in deep eukaryotic phylogenomics. Syst. Biol. 54 (2005) 743-757
35. Rodriguez-Ezpeleta N., et al. Monophyly of primary photosynthetic eukaryotes: Green plants, red algae, and glaucophytes. Curr. Biol. 15 (2005) 1325-1330
36. Novacek M.J. Fossils, topologies, missing data, and the higher level phylogeny of eutherian mammals. Syst. Biol. 41 (1992) 58-73
37. Wilkinson M., and Benton M.J. Missing data and rhynchosaur phylogeny. Hist. Biol. 10 (1995) 137-150
38. Huelsenbeck J.P. When are fossils better than extant taxa in phylogenetic analysis?. Syst. Zool. 40 (1991) 458-469
39. Wiens J.J. Does adding characters with missing data increase or decrease phylogenetic accuracy?. Syst. Biol. 47 (1998) 625-640
40. Wiens J.J. Missing data, incomplete taxa, and phylogenetic accuracy. Syst. Biol. 52 (2003) 528-538
41. Wiens J.J. Can incomplete taxa rescue phylogenetic analyses from long-branch attraction?. Syst. Biol. 54 (2005) 731-742
42. Takishita K., et al. A transcriptional fusion of genes encoding glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) and enolase in dinoflagellates. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 52 (2005) 343-348
43. Parkinson J., et al. A transcriptomic analysis of the phylum Nematoda. Nat. Genet. 36 (2004) 1259-1267
44. Kortschak R.D., et al. 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
45. Technau U., et al. Maintenance of ancestral complexity and non-metazoan genes in two basal cnidarians. Trends Genet. 21 (2005) 633-639
46. King N., and Carroll S.B. A receptor tyrosine kinase from choanoflagellates: molecular insights into early animal evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 98 (2001) 15032-15037
47. Snell E.A., et al. An unusual choanoflagellate protein released by Hedgehog autocatalytic processing. Proc. Biol. Sci. 273 (2006) 401-407
48. Rudd S. Expressed sequence tags: alternative or complement to whole genome sequences?. Trends Plant Sci. 8 (2003) 321-329
49. O'Brien S.J., et al. Genomics. On choosing mammalian genomes for sequencing. Science 292 (2001) 2264-2266
50. Pryer K.M., et al. Deciding among green plants for whole genome studies. Trends Plant Sci. 7 (2002) 550-554
51. Haeckel E. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen: Allgemeine Grundzüge der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft, mechanisch begründet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie (1866), Georg Reimer
52. Brusca R.C., and Brusca G.J. Invertebrates (1990), Sinauer Associates
53. Manuel M., et al. Phylogeny and evolution of calcareous sponges: monophyly of Calcinea and Calcaronea, high level of morphological homoplasy, and the primitive nature of axial symmetry. Syst. Biol. 52 (2003) 311-333
54. Ruiz-Trillo I., et al. Mitochondrial genome data support the basal position of Acoelomorpha and the polyphyly of the Platyhelminthes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 33 (2004) 321-332
55. Olsen G.J. Earliest phylogenetic branching: comparing rRNA-based evolutionary trees inferred with various techniques. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 52 (1987) 825-837
56. Lemmon A.R., and Moriarty E.C. The importance of proper model assumption in bayesian phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 53 (2004) 265-277
57. Lockhart P.J., et al. Substitutional bias confounds inference of cyanelle origins from sequence data. J. Mol. Evol. 34 (1992) 153-162
58. Lartillot N., and Philippe H. A Bayesian mixture model for across-site heterogeneities in the amino-acid replacement process. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21 (2004) 1095-1109
59. Lockhart P.J., et al. Evolution of chlorophyll and bacteriochlorophyll: the problem of invariant sites in sequence analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93 (1996) 1930-1934
60. Kolaczkowski B., and Thornton J.W. Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous. Nature 431 (2004) 980-984
61. Ho S.Y., and Jermiin L. Tracing the decay of the historical signal in biological sequence data. Syst. Biol. 53 (2004) 623-637
62. Sanderson M.J., and Shaffer H.B. Troubleshooting molecular phylogenetic analyses. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33 (2002) 49-72
63. Lio P., and Goldman N. Models of molecular evolution and phylogeny. Genome Res. 8 (1998) 1233-1244
64. Brinkmann H., and Philippe H. Archaea: sister group of Bacteria? Indications from tree reconstruction artifacts in ancient phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16 (1999) 817-825
65. Burleigh J.G., and Mathews S. Phylogenetic signal in nucleotide data from seed plants: implications for resolving the seed plant tree of life. Am. J. Bot. 91 (2004) 1599-1613
66. Roure, B. et al. SCaFoS: a tool for selection, concatenation and fusion of sequences for phylogenomics. BMC Evol. Biol. (in press)
67. Goodman M., et al. Fitting the gene lineage into its species lineage, a parsimony strategy illustrated by cladograms constructed from globin sequences. Syst. Zool. 28 (1979) 132-163
68. Sanderson, M.J. and McMahon, M.M. Inferring angiosperm phylogeny from EST data with widespread gene duplication. BMC Evol. Biol. (in press)
69. Telford M.J., et al. Consideration of RNA secondary structure significantly improves likelihood-based estimates of phylogeny: examples from the bilateria. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22 (2005) 1129-1136
70. Rodrigue, N. et al. Assessing site-interdependent phylogenetic models of sequence evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. (in press)