Early cephalopod evolution clarified through Bayesian phylogenetic inference.
Bayesian phylogenetics
Cephalopoda
Endoceratoidea
Fossilized birth-death process
Multiceratoidea
Nautiloidea
Orthoceratoidea
Phylogeny
Posterior clade probabilities
Tree similarities
Journal
BMC biology
ISSN: 1741-7007
Titre abrégé: BMC Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190720
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 04 2022
14 04 2022
Historique:
received:
07
06
2021
accepted:
22
03
2022
entrez:
15
4
2022
pubmed:
16
4
2022
medline:
19
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Despite the excellent fossil record of cephalopods, their early evolution is poorly understood. Different, partly incompatible phylogenetic hypotheses have been proposed in the past, which reflected individual author's opinions on the importance of certain characters but were not based on thorough cladistic analyses. At the same time, methods of phylogenetic inference have undergone substantial improvements. For fossil datasets, which typically only include morphological data, Bayesian inference and in particular the introduction of the fossilized birth-death model have opened new possibilities. Nevertheless, many tree topologies recovered from these new methods reflect large uncertainties, which have led to discussions on how to best summarize the information contained in the posterior set of trees. We present a large, newly compiled morphological character matrix of Cambrian and Ordovician cephalopods to conduct a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis and resolve existing controversies. Our results recover three major monophyletic groups, which correspond to the previously recognized Endoceratoidea, Multiceratoidea, and Orthoceratoidea, though comprising slightly different taxa. In addition, many Cambrian and Early Ordovician representatives of the Ellesmerocerida and Plectronocerida were recovered near the root. The Ellesmerocerida is para- and polyphyletic, with some of its members recovered among the Multiceratoidea and early Endoceratoidea. These relationships are robust against modifications of the dataset. While our trees initially seem to reflect large uncertainties, these are mainly a consequence of the way clade support is measured. We show that clade posterior probabilities and tree similarity metrics often underestimate congruence between trees, especially if wildcard taxa are involved. Our results provide important insights into the earliest evolution of cephalopods and clarify evolutionary pathways. We provide a classification scheme that is based on a robust phylogenetic analysis. Moreover, we provide some general insights on the application of Bayesian phylogenetic inference on morphological datasets. We support earlier findings that quartet similarity metrics should be preferred over the Robinson-Foulds distance when higher-level phylogenetic relationships are of interest and propose that using a posteriori pruned maximum clade credibility trees help in assessing support for phylogenetic relationships among a set of relevant taxa, because they provide clade support values that better reflect the phylogenetic signal.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite the excellent fossil record of cephalopods, their early evolution is poorly understood. Different, partly incompatible phylogenetic hypotheses have been proposed in the past, which reflected individual author's opinions on the importance of certain characters but were not based on thorough cladistic analyses. At the same time, methods of phylogenetic inference have undergone substantial improvements. For fossil datasets, which typically only include morphological data, Bayesian inference and in particular the introduction of the fossilized birth-death model have opened new possibilities. Nevertheless, many tree topologies recovered from these new methods reflect large uncertainties, which have led to discussions on how to best summarize the information contained in the posterior set of trees.
RESULTS
We present a large, newly compiled morphological character matrix of Cambrian and Ordovician cephalopods to conduct a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis and resolve existing controversies. Our results recover three major monophyletic groups, which correspond to the previously recognized Endoceratoidea, Multiceratoidea, and Orthoceratoidea, though comprising slightly different taxa. In addition, many Cambrian and Early Ordovician representatives of the Ellesmerocerida and Plectronocerida were recovered near the root. The Ellesmerocerida is para- and polyphyletic, with some of its members recovered among the Multiceratoidea and early Endoceratoidea. These relationships are robust against modifications of the dataset. While our trees initially seem to reflect large uncertainties, these are mainly a consequence of the way clade support is measured. We show that clade posterior probabilities and tree similarity metrics often underestimate congruence between trees, especially if wildcard taxa are involved.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results provide important insights into the earliest evolution of cephalopods and clarify evolutionary pathways. We provide a classification scheme that is based on a robust phylogenetic analysis. Moreover, we provide some general insights on the application of Bayesian phylogenetic inference on morphological datasets. We support earlier findings that quartet similarity metrics should be preferred over the Robinson-Foulds distance when higher-level phylogenetic relationships are of interest and propose that using a posteriori pruned maximum clade credibility trees help in assessing support for phylogenetic relationships among a set of relevant taxa, because they provide clade support values that better reflect the phylogenetic signal.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35421982
doi: 10.1186/s12915-022-01284-5
pii: 10.1186/s12915-022-01284-5
pmc: PMC9008929
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
88Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Bioessays. 2011 Aug;33(8):602-13
pubmed: 21681989
Syst Biol. 2021 Feb 10;70(2):283-294
pubmed: 32692834
Syst Biol. 2001 Nov-Dec;50(6):913-25
pubmed: 12116640
Syst Biol. 2020 Nov 1;69(6):1088-1105
pubmed: 32191335
Biol Lett. 2016 Jul;12(7):
pubmed: 27405380
BMC Evol Biol. 2013 Oct 04;13:221
pubmed: 24093883
Syst Biol. 2003 Aug;52(4):539-48
pubmed: 12857644
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Mar 5;116(10):4394-4399
pubmed: 30782836
Syst Biol. 2015 Mar;64(2):307-24
pubmed: 25527198
Syst Biol. 2008 Oct;57(5):814-21
pubmed: 18853367
PeerJ. 2018 Apr 6;6:e4553
pubmed: 29637019
Syst Biol. 2018 Sep 1;67(5):901-904
pubmed: 29718447
Nature. 2010 May 27;465(7297):469-72
pubmed: 20505727
BMC Biol. 2020 Dec 7;18(1):191
pubmed: 33287835
Syst Biol. 2003 Feb;52(1):124-6
pubmed: 12554446
PLoS Comput Biol. 2019 Apr 8;15(4):e1006650
pubmed: 30958812
J Mol Evol. 2006 Mar;62(3):362-74
pubmed: 16501879
Syst Biol. 2017 Jan 01;66(1):57-73
pubmed: 28173531
Cladistics. 2021 Oct;37(5):596-629
pubmed: 34570932
Syst Biol. 2009 Jun;58(3):367-80
pubmed: 20525591
Syst Biol. 2020 Mar 1;69(2):325-344
pubmed: 31132125
Biol Lett. 2012 Feb 23;8(1):156-9
pubmed: 21865245
Bioinformatics. 2014 Jul 15;30(14):2079-80
pubmed: 24651968
Cladistics. 2006 Dec;22(6):589-601
pubmed: 34892898
Proc Biol Sci. 2019 May 15;286(1902):20190685
pubmed: 31064306
Proc Biol Sci. 2021 May 12;288(1950):20210044
pubmed: 33947239
PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Dec 04;10(12):e1003919
pubmed: 25474353
Syst Biol. 2018 Mar 01;67(2):328-339
pubmed: 28945906
Bioinformatics. 2008 Mar 1;24(5):715-6
pubmed: 18227120
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 2;14(4):e0212942
pubmed: 30939174
Commun Biol. 2019 Jul 31;2:280
pubmed: 31372519
Commun Biol. 2021 Mar 23;4(1):388
pubmed: 33758350
Bioinformatics. 2010 Aug 1;26(15):1907-9
pubmed: 20525823
Mol Biol Evol. 1996 Mar;13(3):437-44
pubmed: 8742632
Syst Biol. 2018 Mar 01;67(2):354-362
pubmed: 29106675
Syst Biol. 2019 Jul 1;68(4):619-631
pubmed: 30535172
Biol Lett. 2019 Feb 28;15(2):20180632
pubmed: 30958126
PeerJ. 2020 Jun 26;8:e9368
pubmed: 32617191
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jul 22;111(29):E2957-66
pubmed: 25009181
Cladistics. 2009 Oct;25(5):515-527
pubmed: 34879625
Syst Biol. 2017 Jul 01;66(4):499-516
pubmed: 27920231
Bioinformatics. 2020 Dec 22;36(20):5007-5013
pubmed: 32619004
Syst Biol. 1999 Sep;48(3):413-35
pubmed: 12066290
Syst Biol. 2020 Jan 1;69(1):124-138
pubmed: 31127936
Syst Biol. 2013 Jan 1;62(1):162-6
pubmed: 22962004
Cladistics. 1999 Dec;15(4):363-371
pubmed: 34902943
Syst Biol. 2021 Oct 13;70(6):1232-1255
pubmed: 33760075
Nat Microbiol. 2016 Apr 11;1:16048
pubmed: 27572647
Syst Biol. 2019 Sep 1;68(5):698-716
pubmed: 30668800
Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:407072
pubmed: 24350268
Syst Biol. 2015 Jan;64(1):137-43
pubmed: 25183706
Biol Lett. 2016 Aug;12(8):
pubmed: 27484647
Syst Biol. 2020 Nov 1;69(6):1052-1067
pubmed: 32208492
Proc Biol Sci. 2017 Mar 15;284(1850):
pubmed: 28250188
Cladistics. 2017 Apr;33(2):198-219
pubmed: 34710972
J Morphol. 2008 Jan;269(1):1-17
pubmed: 17654542
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2016 Jan;94(Pt A):146-58
pubmed: 26335040
Insect Syst Divers. 2019 May;3(3):2
pubmed: 31355348
Cladistics. 2015 Oct;31(5):550-567
pubmed: 34772278
J Theor Biol. 2010 Dec 7;267(3):396-404
pubmed: 20851708
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2011 Feb;58(2):390-4
pubmed: 21145402