Resolving the phylogenetic position of coelacanth: The closest relative is not always the most appropriate outgroup

Genome Biology and Evolution

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 1208-1221

  Takezaki, Naoko ^a   Nishihara, Hidenori ^b  

^a KAGAWA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b TOKYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Cartilaginous fish; Lungfish; Missing data; Phylogenomics; Ray finned fish

Indexed keywords

RNA;

ANIMAL; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FISH; GENETICS; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY;

ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; FISHES; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; RNA;

EID: 85015348042     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17596653     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evw071     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Alfaro ME, Zoller S, Lutzoni F. 2003. Bayes or bootstrap? A simulation study comparing the performance of Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling and bootstrapping in assessing phylogenetic confidence. Mol Biol Evol. 20:255-266.
2. Altekar G, Dwarkadas S, Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F. 2004. Parallel Metropolis coupled Markov chain Monte Carlo for Bayesian phylogenetic inference. Bioinformatics 20:407-415.
3. Amemiya C, et al. 2013. The African coelacanth genome provides insights into tetrapod evolution. Nature 496:311-316.
4. Amores A, Catchen J, Ferrara A, Fontenot Q, Postlethwait JH. 2011. Genomic evolution and meiotic maps by massively parallel DNA sequencing: spotted gar, an outgroup for the teleost genome duplication. Genetics 188:799-808.
5. Benton MJ. 2005. Vertebrate paleontology. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
6. Benton MJ. 2015. Vertebrate paleontology. 4th ed. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
7. Brinkmann H, Philippe H. 1999. Archaea sister group of bacteria? Indications from tree reconstruction artifacts in ancient phylogenies. Mol Biol Evol. 16:817-825.
8. Brinkmann H, Venkatesh B, Brenner S, Meyer A. 2004. Nuclear proteincoding genes support lungfish and not the coelacanth as the closest living relatives of land vertebrates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 101: 4900-4905.
9. Bruen TC, Philippe H, Bryant D. 2006. A simple and robust statistical test for detecting the presence of recombination. Genetics 172: 2665-2681.
10. Brunet FG, et al. 2006. Gene loss and evolutionary rates following wholegenome duplication in teleost fishes. Mol Biol Evol. 23:1808-1816.
11. Buckley TR. 2002. Model misspecification and probabilistic tests of topology: evidence from empirical data sets. Syst Biol. 51:509-523.
12. Buckley TR, Arensburger P, Simon C, Chambers GK. 2002. Combined data, Bayesian phylogenies, and the origin of the New Zealand cicada genera. Syst Biol. 51:4-18.
13. Clack JA. 2002. Gaining ground. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press.
14. Cox MP, Peterson DA, Biggs PJ. 2010. SolexaQA: at-a-glance quality assessment of Illumina second-generation sequencing data. BMC Bioinformatics 11:485.
15. Christoffels A, et al. 2004. Fugu genome analysis provides evidence for a whole-genome duplication early during the evolution of ray-finned fishes. Mol Biol Evol. 21:1146-1151.
16. Crow KD, Stadler PF, Lynch VJ, Amemiya C, Wagner GP. 2006. The "fishspecific" Hox cluster duplication is coincident with the origin of teleosts. Mol Biol Evol. 23:121-136.
17. Cummings MP, et al. 2003. Comparing bootstrap and posterior probability values in the four-taxon case. Syst Biol. 52:477-487.
18. Cunningham FM, et al. 2015. Ensembl 2015. Nucleic Acids Res. 43: D662-D669.
19. Dayhoff MO, Schwartz RM, Orcutt BC. 1978. A model for evolutionary change in proteins. In: Atlas of protein sequence and structure. Vol. 5. Washington (DC): National Biomedical Research Foundation. p. 345-352.
20. Douady CJ, Catzeflis F, Raman J, Springer MS, Stanhope MJ. 2003. The Sahara as a vicariant agent, and the role ofMiocene climatic events, in the diversification of the mammalian order Macroscelidea (elephant shrews). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 100:8325-8330.
21. Douady CJ, Delsuc F, Boucher Y, Doolittle WF, Douzery EJ. 2003. Comparison of Bayesian and maximum likelihood bootstrap measures of phylogenetic reliability. Mol Biol Evol. 20:248-254.
22. Douady CJ, Dosay M, Shivi MS, Stanhope MJ. 2003. Molecular phylogenetic evidence refuting the hypothesis of Batoidea (rays and skates) as derived sharks. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 26:d215-d221.
23. Edwards SV, et al. 2016. Implementing and testing the multispecies coalescent model: a valuable paradigm for phylogenomics. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 94:447-462.
24. Felsenstein J. 2005. PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package) version 3.6. Distributed by the author. Seattle (WA): Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington .
25. Gorr T, Kleinschmidt T, Fricke H. 1991. Close relationships of the coelacanth Latimeria indicated by haemoglogin sequences. Nature 351:394-397.
26. Grabherr MG, et al. 2011. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNASeq data without a reference genome. Nat Biotechnol. 29:644-652.
27. Guindon S, et al. 2010. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum- likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst Biol. 59:307-321.
28. Hess J, Goldman N. 2011. Addressing inter-gene heterogeneity in maximum likelihood phylogenomic analysis: yeasts revisited. PLoS One 6:e22783.
29. Higasa K, et al. 2012. Extremely slow rate of evolution in the HOX cluster revealed by comparison between Tanzanian and Indonesian coelacanths. Gene 505:324-332.
30. Hoegg S, Brinkmann H, Taylor JS, Meyer A. 2004. Phylogenetic timing of the fish-specific genome duplication correlates with the diversification of teleost fish. J Mol Evol. 39:190-203.
31. Holland B, Huber KT, Dress A, Moulton V. 2002. d-plots: a tool for analyzing phylogenetic distance data. Mol Biol Evol. 19:2051-2059.
32. Huson DH, Bryant D. 2006. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol Biol Evol. 23:254-267.
33. Inoue JG, Miya M, Tsukamoto K, Nishida M. 2003. Basal actinopterygian relationships: a mitogenomic perspective on the phylogeny of the "ancient fish". Mol Phylogenet Evol. 26:110-120.
34. Jiang W, Chen SY, Wang H, Li DZ, Wiens JJ. 2014. Should genes missing data be excluded from phylogenetic analyses? Mol Phylogenet Evol. 80:308-318.
35. Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM. 1992. The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences. Comput Appl Biosci. 8:275-282.
36. Katoh K, Standley DM. 2013. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 30:772-780.
37. Lartillot N, Lepage T, Blanquart S. 2009. PhyloBayes 3: a Bayesian software package for phylogenetic reconstruction and molecular dating. Phylogenetics 25:2286-2288.
38. Le SQ, Gascuel O. 2008. An improved general amino acid replacement matrix. Mol Biol Evol. 25:1307-1320.
39. Lewis PO, Holder MT, Holsinger KE. 2005. Polytomies and Bayesian phylogenetic inference. Syst Biol. 54:241-253.
40. Liang D, Shen XX, Zhang P. 2013. One thousand two hundred ninety nuclear genes from a genome-wide survey support lungfishes as the sister group of tetrapods. Mol Biol Evol. 30:1803-1807.
41. Mirarab S, Bayzid MS, Boussau B, Warnow T. 2014. Statistical binning enables an accurate coalescent-based estimation of the avian tree. Science 346:1250463.
42. Mirarab S, et al. 2014. ASTRAL: genome-scale coalescent-based species tree estimation. Bioinformatics 30:i541-i548.
43. Murphy JW, et al. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics and the origin of placental mammals. Nature 409:614-618.
44. Nabhan AR, Sarkar IN. 2012. The impact of taxon sampling on phylogenetic inference: a review of two decades of controversy. Brief Bioinform. 13:122-134.
45. Nikaido M, et al. 2013. Coelacanth genomes reveal signatures for evolutionary transition from water to land. Genome Res. 23:1740-1748.
46. Nishihara H, Okada N, Hasegawa M. 2007. Rooting the eutherian tree: the power and pitfalls of phylogenomics. Genome Biol. 8:R199.
47. Philippe H, Delsuc F, Brinkmann H, Lartillot N. 2005. Phylogenomics. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 36:541-562.
48. Phillips MJ, Delsuc F, Penny D. 2004. Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. Mol Biol Evol. 21:1455-1458.
49. Philippe H, et al. 2011. Resolving difficult phylogenetic questions: why more are not enough. PLoS Biol. 9:e1000602.
50. Rambaut A, Grassly NC. 1997. Seq-Gen: An application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees. Comput Appl Biosci 13:235-238.
51. Rodriguez-Ezpeleta N, et al. 2007. Detecting and overcoming systematic errors in genome-scale phylogenies. Syst Biol. 56:389-399.
52. Rokas A, Williams BL, King N, Carroll SB. 2003. Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 425: 798-804.
53. Romer AS. 1966. Vertebrate paleontology. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.
54. Roure B, Baurain D, Philippe H. 2012. Impact of missing data on phylogenies inferred from empirical phylogenomic data sets. Mol Biol Evol. 30:197-214.
55. Salichos L, Rokas A. 2013. Inferring ancient divergences requires genes with strong phylogenetic signals. Nature 497:327-331.
56. Schultze HP, Trueb L. 1991. Origins of the higher groups of tetrapods: controversy and consensus. Ithaca (NY): Comstock Publishing Associates.
57. Seo TK. 2008. Calculating bootstrap probabilities of phylogeny using multilocus sequence data. Mol Biol Evol. 25:960-971.
58. Shimodaira H, Hasegawa M. 2001. CONSEL: for assessing the confidence of phylogenetic tree selection. Bioinformatics 17:1246-1247.
59. Stamatakis A. 2014. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30:1312-1313.
60. Swartz BA. 2009. Devonian actinopterygian phylogeny and evolution based on a redescription of Stegotrachelus finlayi. Zool J Linn Soc. 156:750-784.
61. Takezaki N, Figueroa F, Zaleska-Rutczynska Z, Takahata N, Klein J. 2004. The phylogenetic relationship of tetrapod, coelacanth, and lungfish revealed by the sequences of forty-four nuclear genes. Mol Biol Evol. 21:1512-1524.
62. Venkatesh B, Erdmann MV, Brenner S. 2001. Molecular synapomorphies resolve evolutionary relationships of extant jawed vertebrates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 98:11382-11387.
63. Whelan S, Goldman N. 2001. A general empirical model of protein evolution derived from multiple protein families using a maximumlikelihood approach. Mol Biol Evol. 18:691-699.
64. Whittingham LA, Silkas B, Winkler DW, Sheldon FH. 2002. Phylogeny of the tree swallow genus, Tachycineta (Aves: Hirundinidae), by Bayesian analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 22:430-441.
65. Woods IG, et al. 2005. The zebrafish gene map defines ancestral vertebrate chromosomes. Genome Res. 15:1307-1314.
66. Zardoya R, Cao Y, Hasegawa M, Meyer A. 1998. Searching for the closest living relative(s) of tetrapods through evolutionary analyses of mitochondrial and nuclear data. Mol Biol Evol. 15:506-517.
67. Zhu M, Yu X. 2002. A primitive fish close to the common ancestor of tetrapods and lungfish. Nature 418:767-770.
68. Zhu M, Yu X, Ahlberg P. 2001. A primitive sarcopterygian fish with an eyestalk. Nature 410:81-84.
69. Zhu M, Yu X, Wang W, Zhao W, Jia LA. 2006. Primitive fish provides key characters bearing on deep osteichthyan phylogeny. Nature 441:77-80.
70. Zhu M, et al. 2009. The oldest articulated osteichthyan reveals mosaic gnathostome characters. Nature 458:469-474.