Four myriapod relatives - but who are sisters? No end to debates on relationships among the four major myriapod subgroups.
Arthropod phylogeny
Conflict
Confounding signal
Internal rooting
Phylogenetics
Phylogenomics
Quartet topology
RNA-Seq
Transcriptomes
Journal
BMC evolutionary biology
ISSN: 1471-2148
Titre abrégé: BMC Evol Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100966975
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 11 2020
04 11 2020
Historique:
received:
16
05
2020
accepted:
30
09
2020
entrez:
5
11
2020
pubmed:
6
11
2020
medline:
26
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Phylogenetic relationships among the myriapod subgroups Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Symphyla and Pauropoda are still not robustly resolved. The first phylogenomic study covering all subgroups resolved phylogenetic relationships congruently to morphological evidence but is in conflict with most previously published phylogenetic trees based on diverse molecular data. Outgroup choice and long-branch attraction effects were stated as possible explanations for these incongruencies. In this study, we addressed these issues by extending the myriapod and outgroup taxon sampling using transcriptome data. We generated new transcriptome data of 42 panarthropod species, including all four myriapod subgroups and additional outgroup taxa. Our taxon sampling was complemented by published transcriptome and genome data resulting in a supermatrix covering 59 species. We compiled two data sets, the first with a full coverage of genes per species (292 single-copy protein-coding genes), the second with a less stringent coverage (988 genes). We inferred phylogenetic relationships among myriapods using different data types, tree inference, and quartet computation approaches. Our results unambiguously support monophyletic Mandibulata and Myriapoda. Our analyses clearly showed that there is strong signal for a single unrooted topology, but a sensitivity of the position of the internal root on the choice of outgroups. However, we observe strong evidence for a clade Pauropoda+Symphyla, as well as for a clade Chilopoda+Diplopoda. Our best quartet topology is incongruent with current morphological phylogenies which were supported in another phylogenomic study. AU tests and quartet mapping reject the quartet topology congruent to trees inferred with morphological characters. Moreover, quartet mapping shows that confounding signal present in the data set is sufficient to explain the weak signal for the quartet topology derived from morphological characters. Although outgroup choice affects results, our study could narrow possible trees to derivatives of a single quartet topology. For highly disputed relationships, we propose to apply a series of tests (AU and quartet mapping), since results of such tests allow to narrow down possible relationships and to rule out confounding signal.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Phylogenetic relationships among the myriapod subgroups Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Symphyla and Pauropoda are still not robustly resolved. The first phylogenomic study covering all subgroups resolved phylogenetic relationships congruently to morphological evidence but is in conflict with most previously published phylogenetic trees based on diverse molecular data. Outgroup choice and long-branch attraction effects were stated as possible explanations for these incongruencies. In this study, we addressed these issues by extending the myriapod and outgroup taxon sampling using transcriptome data.
RESULTS
We generated new transcriptome data of 42 panarthropod species, including all four myriapod subgroups and additional outgroup taxa. Our taxon sampling was complemented by published transcriptome and genome data resulting in a supermatrix covering 59 species. We compiled two data sets, the first with a full coverage of genes per species (292 single-copy protein-coding genes), the second with a less stringent coverage (988 genes). We inferred phylogenetic relationships among myriapods using different data types, tree inference, and quartet computation approaches. Our results unambiguously support monophyletic Mandibulata and Myriapoda. Our analyses clearly showed that there is strong signal for a single unrooted topology, but a sensitivity of the position of the internal root on the choice of outgroups. However, we observe strong evidence for a clade Pauropoda+Symphyla, as well as for a clade Chilopoda+Diplopoda.
CONCLUSIONS
Our best quartet topology is incongruent with current morphological phylogenies which were supported in another phylogenomic study. AU tests and quartet mapping reject the quartet topology congruent to trees inferred with morphological characters. Moreover, quartet mapping shows that confounding signal present in the data set is sufficient to explain the weak signal for the quartet topology derived from morphological characters. Although outgroup choice affects results, our study could narrow possible trees to derivatives of a single quartet topology. For highly disputed relationships, we propose to apply a series of tests (AU and quartet mapping), since results of such tests allow to narrow down possible relationships and to rule out confounding signal.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33148176
doi: 10.1186/s12862-020-01699-0
pii: 10.1186/s12862-020-01699-0
pmc: PMC7640414
doi:
Banques de données
Dryad
['10.5061/dryad.cvdncjt2r']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
144Subventions
Organisme : Austrian Science Fund
ID : P 20497-B17
Pays : International
Organisme : Austrian Science Fund
ID : P 23251-B17
Pays : International
Organisme : Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
ID : PP00P3_170664
Pays : International
Organisme : European Research Council
ID : 754290
Pays : International
Références
Bioinformatics. 2006 May 15;22(10):1225-31
pubmed: 16492684
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 25;12(8):e0183393
pubmed: 28841676
Am J Bot. 2018 Mar;105(3):385-403
pubmed: 29746719
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e47450
pubmed: 23185239
Syst Biol. 2020 Mar 1;69(2):308-324
pubmed: 31504977
Mol Biol Evol. 2017 Mar 1;34(3):772-773
pubmed: 28013191
Syst Biol. 2018 Mar 01;67(2):216-235
pubmed: 28950365
Syst Biol. 2017 Mar 01;66(2):232-255
pubmed: 27633354
Sci Rep. 2014 Feb 18;4:4127
pubmed: 24535281
Curr Biol. 2019 Jun 17;29(12):R592-R602
pubmed: 31211983
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2014 Aug;77:25-33
pubmed: 24732681
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Jan;43(Database issue):D707-13
pubmed: 25510499
Sci Rep. 2018 Jan 8;8(1):83
pubmed: 29311682
PLoS Biol. 2014 Nov 25;12(11):e1002005
pubmed: 25423365
Mol Biol Evol. 2012 Oct;29(10):2921-36
pubmed: 22491036
Curr Biol. 2017 Jun 19;27(12):1818-1824.e5
pubmed: 28602656
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Jun 24;94(13):6815-9
pubmed: 9192648
Science. 2011 Feb 4;331(6017):555-61
pubmed: 21292972
Zoolog Sci. 2006 Dec;23(12):1101-8
pubmed: 17261924
Bioinformatics. 2014 May 1;30(9):1312-3
pubmed: 24451623
Arthropod Struct Dev. 2018 Jul;47(4):328-338
pubmed: 29763650
Mol Biol Evol. 2014 Jun;31(6):1500-13
pubmed: 24674821
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Jan;43(Database issue):D250-6
pubmed: 25428351
Syst Biol. 2002 Jun;51(3):492-508
pubmed: 12079646
Science. 2014 Nov 7;346(6210):763-7
pubmed: 25378627
Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Jun;21(6):1095-109
pubmed: 15014145
Biodivers Data J. 2013 Oct 28;(1):e1013
pubmed: 24723752
Nature. 2010 Feb 25;463(7284):1079-83
pubmed: 20147900
Nat Commun. 2014 May 20;5:3636
pubmed: 24845553
Trends Parasitol. 2005 Apr;21(4):151-3
pubmed: 15780833
BMC Bioinformatics. 2013 Dec 03;14:348
pubmed: 24299043
Bioinformatics. 2010 Jul 1;26(13):1669-70
pubmed: 20472542
Bioinformatics. 2008 Oct 15;24(20):2317-23
pubmed: 18718941
Syst Biol. 2016 Nov;65(6):997-1008
pubmed: 27121966
Mol Biol Evol. 2015 Jan;32(1):268-74
pubmed: 25371430
Syst Biol. 2004 Aug;53(4):638-43
pubmed: 15371251
Syst Biol. 2013 Jan 1;62(1):162-6
pubmed: 22962004
Curr Biol. 2017 Apr 3;27(7):1013-1018
pubmed: 28343967
BMC Genomics. 2016 Nov 03;17(1):861
pubmed: 27809783
Mol Biol Evol. 2014 Jan;31(1):239-49
pubmed: 24140757
Curr Biol. 2017 Dec 18;27(24):3864-3870.e4
pubmed: 29199080
Syst Biol. 2008 Dec;57(6):920-38
pubmed: 19085333
J Comput Biol. 2010 Mar;17(3):337-54
pubmed: 20377449
BMC Bioinformatics. 2017 Feb 16;18(1):111
pubmed: 28209129