Large-scale parsimony analysis of metazoan indels in protein-coding genes

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 441-451

  Belinky, Frida ^a   Cohen, Ofir ^a   Huchon, Dorothée ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

Coelomata; Ecdysozoa; Indel; Indel coding method; Long branch attraction; Phylogeny

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLADISTICS; GENE; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC CODE; INDEL MUTATION; METAZOON; MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY; NONHUMAN; PARSIMONY ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENETIC TREE; SPONGE (PORIFERA); SUBSTITUTION REACTION; TAXON;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; ANIMALS; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; INDEL MUTATION; INVERTEBRATES; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; PHYLOGENY; PORIFERA; PROTEINS; SEQUENCE HOMOLOGY, AMINO ACID;

ANIMALIA; COELOMATA; ECDYSOZOA; METAZOA;

EID: 74549118866     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: 15371719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msp263     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Castresana J. 2000. Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Mol Biol Evol. 17:540-552.
2. Chen F, Mackey AJ, Vermunt JK, Roos DS. 2007. Assessing performance of orthology detection strategies applied to eukaryotic genomes. PLoS ONE. 2:e383.
3. de Jong WW, van Dijk MA, Poux C, Kappe G, van Rheede T, Madsen O. 2003. Indels in protein-coding sequences of Euarchontoglires constrain the rooting of the eutherian tree. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 28:328-340.
4. Dellaporta SL, Xu A, Sagasser S, Jakob W, Moreno MA, Buss LW, Schierwater B. 2006. Mitochondrial genome of Trichoplax adhaerens supports Placozoa as the basal lower metazoan phylum. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 103:8751-8756.
5. Delsuc F, Brinkmann H, Philippe H. 2005. Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nat Rev Genet. 6:361-375.
6. Deutsch M, Long M. 1999. Intron-exon structures of eukaryotic model organisms. Nucleic Acids Res. 27:3219-3228.
7. Do CB, Mahabhashyam MS, Brudno M, Batzoglou S. 2005. ProbCons: probabilistic consistency-based multiple sequence alignment. Genome Res. 15:330-340.
8. Dunn CW, Hejnol A, Matus DQ, et al. (18 co-authors). 2008. Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature 452:745-749.
9. Felsenstein J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst Zool. 27:401-410.
10. Felsenstein J. 1985. Confidence-limits on phylogenies\-an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
11. Flicek P, Aken BL, Beal K, et al. (59 co-authors). 2008. Ensembl 2008. Nucleic Acids Res. 36:D707-D714.
12. Glenner H, Hansen AJ, Sorensen MV, Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP, Willerslev E. 2004. Bayesian inference of the metazoan phylogeny: a combined molecular and morphological approach. Curr Biol. 14:1644-1649.
13. Graybeal A. 1998. Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? Syst Biol. 47:9-17.
14. Gupta RS. 2001. The branching order and phylogenetic placement of species from completed bacterial genomes, based on conserved indels found in various proteins. Int Microbiol. 4:187-202.
15. Gupta RS. 2006. Molecular signatures (unique proteins and conserved indels) that are specific for the epsilon proteobacteria (Campylobacterales). BMC Genomics. 7:167.
16. Gupta RS, Mok A. 2007. Phylogenomics and signature proteins for the alpha proteobacteria and its main groups. BMC Microbiol. 7:106.
17. Haen KM, Lang BF, Pomponi SA, Lavrov DV. 2007. Glass sponges and bilaterian animals share derived mitochondrial genomic features: a common ancestry or parallel evolution? Mol Biol Evol. 24:1518-1527.
18. Halanych KM. 2004. The new view of animal phylogeny. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 35:229-256.
19. Hooper JNA, Van Soest RWM. 2006. A new species of Amphimedon (Porifera, Demospongiae, Haplosclerida, Niphatidae) from the Capricorn-Bunker Group of Islands, Great Barrier Reef, Australia: target species for the 'sponge genome project'. Zootaxa. 1314:31-39.
20. Huang X, Madan A. 1999. CAP3: a DNA sequence assembly program. Genome Res. 9:868-877.
21. Irimia M, Maeso I, Penny D, Garcia-Fernandez J, Roy SW. 2007. Rare coding sequence changes are consistent with Ecdysozoa, not Coelomata. Mol Biol Evol. 24:1604-1607.
22. Iseli C, Jongeneel CV, Bucher P. 1999. ESTScan: a program for detecting, evaluating, and reconstructing potential coding regions in EST sequences. Proc Int Conf Intell Syst Mol Biol. 138-148.
23. King N, Westbrook MJ, Young SL, et al. (36 co-authors). 2008. The genome of the choanoflagellate Monosiga brevicollis and the origin of metazoans. Nature 451:783-788.
24. Landan G, Graur D. 2007. Heads or tails: a simple reliability check for multiple sequence alignments. Mol Biol Evol. 24:1380-1383.
25. Larson A. 1994. The comparison of morphological and molecular data in phylogenetic systematics. Exs. 69:371-390.
26. Lartillot N, Brinkmann H, Philippe H. 2007. Suppression of long-branch attraction artefacts in the animal phylogeny using a site-heterogeneous model. BMC Evol Biol. 7(Suppl 1):S4.
27. Lartillot N, Philippe H. 2008. Improvement of molecular phyloge-netic inference and the phylogeny of Bilateria. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 363:1463-1472.
28. Lecointre G, Philippe H, Van Le HL, Le Guyader H. 1993. Species sampling has a major impact on phylogenetic inference. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2:205-224.
29. Lloyd DG, Calder VL. 1991. Multi-residue gaps, a class of molecular characters with exceptional reliability for phylogenetic analyses. J Evol Biol. 4:9-21.
30. Medina M, Collins AG, Silberman JD, Sogin ML. 2001. Evaluating hypotheses of basal animal phylogeny using complete sequences of large and small subunit rRNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 98:9707-9712.
31. Müller K. 2006. Incorporating information from length-mutational events into phylogenetic analysis. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 38: 667-676.
32. Müller K. 2005. SeqState: primer design and sequence statistics for phylogenetic DNA datasets. Appl Bioinformatics. 4:65-69.
33. Philip GK, Creevey CJ, McInerney JO. 2005. 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. 22:1175-1184.
34. Philippe H, Derelle R, Lopez P, et al. (21 co-authors). 2009. Phylogenomics revives traditional views on deep animal relationships. Curr Biol. 19:706-712.
35. Philippe H, Lartillot N, Brinkmann H. 2005. Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Protostomia. Mol Biol Evol. 22:1246-1253.
36. Philippe H, Laurent J. 1998. How good are deep phylogenetic trees? Curr Opin Genet Dev. 8:616-623.
37. Pruitt KD, Tatusova T, Maglott DR. 2007. NCBI reference sequences (RefSeq): a curated non-redundant sequence database of genomes, transcripts and proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 35: D61-D65.
38. Raff RA. 1996. The shape of life: genes, development, and the evolution of animal form. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
39. Rogozin IB, Wolf YI, Carmel L, Koonin EV. 2007a. Analysis of rare amino acid replacements supports the coelomata clade. Mol Biol Evol. 24:2594-2597.
40. Rogozin IB, Wolf YI, Carmel L, Koonin EV. 2007b. Ecdysozoan clade rejected by genome-wide analysis of rare amino acid replacements. Mol Biol Evol. 24:1080-1090.
41. Rokas A, Holland PW. 2000. Rare genomic changes as a tool for phylogenetics. Trends Ecol Evol. 15:454-459.
42. Rokas A, Kruger D, Carroll SB. 2005. Animal evolution and the molecular signature of radiations compressed in time. Science 310:1933-1938.
43. Roy SW, Irimia M. 2008. Rare genomic characters do not support Coelomata: RGC-CAMs. J Mol Evol. 66:308-315.
44. Schierwater B, Eitel M, Jakob W, Osigus HJ, Hadrys H, Dellaporta SL, Kolokotronis SO, Desalle R. 2009. Concatenated analysis sheds light on early metazoan evolution and fuels a modern "urmetazoon" hypothesis. PLoS Biol. 7:e20.
45. Simmons MP, Muller K, Norton AP. 2007. The relative performance of indel-coding methods in simulations. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 44:724-740.
46. Simmons MP, Ochoterena H. 2000. Gaps as characters in sequence-based phylogenetic analyses. Syst Biol. 49:369-381.
47. Simmons MP, Ochoterena H, Carr TG. 2001. Incorporation, relative homoplasy, and effect of gap characters in sequence-based phylogenetic analyses. Syst Biol. 50:454-462.
48. Swofford DL. 2003. Paup* phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods) version 4.0b10. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.
49. Tatusov RL, Fedorova ND, Jackson JD, et al. (17 co-authors). 2003. The COG database: an updated version includes eukaryotes. BMC Bioinformatics 4:41.
50. Templeton AR. 1983. Phylogenetic Inference from restriction endonuclease cleavage site maps with particular reference to the evolution of humans and the apes. Evolution 37:221-244.
51. van Dijk MAM, Paradis E, Catzeflis F, de Jong WW. 1999. The virtues of gaps: Xenarthran (Edentate) monophyly supported by a unique deletion in alpha A-crystallin. Syst Biol. 48:94-106.
52. Vilella AJ, Severin J, Ureta-Vidal A, Heng L, Durbin R, Birney E. 2009. EnsemblCompara GeneTrees: complete, duplication-aware phy-logenetic trees in vertebrates. Genome Res. 19:327-335.
53. Wolf YI, Rogozin IB, Koonin EV. 2004. Coelomata and not Ecdysozoa: evidence from genome-wide phylogenetic analysis. Genome Res. 14:29-36.
54. Yandell M, Mungall CJ, Smith C, Prochnik S, Kaminker J, Hartzell G, LewisS,RubinG, M. 2006. Large-scale trendsintheevolution of gene structures within 11 animal genomes. PLoS Comput Biol. 2:e15.