Dataset Information

Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals.

ABSTRACT: Understanding how complex traits, such as epithelia, nervous systems, muscles, or guts, originated depends on a well-supported hypothesis about the phylogenetic relationships among major animal lineages. Traditionally, sponges (Porifera) have been interpreted as the sister group to the remaining animals, a hypothesis consistent with the conventional view that the last common animal ancestor was relatively simple and more complex body plans arose later in evolution. However, this premise has recently been challenged by analyses of the genomes of comb jellies (Ctenophora), which, instead, found ctenophores as the sister group to the remaining animals (the "Ctenophora-sister" hypothesis). Because ctenophores are morphologically complex predators with true epithelia, nervous systems, muscles, and guts, this scenario implies these traits were either present in the last common ancestor of all animals and were lost secondarily in sponges and placozoans (Trichoplax) or, alternatively, evolved convergently in comb jellies. Here, we analyze representative datasets from recent studies supporting Ctenophora-sister, including genome-scale alignments of concatenated protein sequences, as well as a genomic gene content dataset. We found no support for Ctenophora-sister and conclude it is an artifact resulting from inadequate methodology, especially the use of simplistic evolutionary models and inappropriate choice of species to root the metazoan tree. Our results reinforce a traditional scenario for the evolution of complexity in animals, and indicate that inferences about the evolution of Metazoa based on the Ctenophora-sister hypothesis are not supported by the currently available data.

SUBMITTER: Pisani D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4687580 | biostudies-other | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe morphological peculiarities of turtles have, for a long time, impeded their accurate placement in the phylogeny of amniotes. Molecular data used to address this major evolutionary question have so far been limited to a handful of markers and/or taxa. These studies have supported conflicting topologies, positioning turtles as either the sister group to all other reptiles, to lepidosaurs (tuatara, lizards and snakes), to archosaurs (birds and crocodiles), or to crocodilians. Genome-scale data have been shown to be useful in resolving other debated phylogenies, but no such adequate dataset is yet available for amniotes.ResultsIn this study, we used next-generation sequencing to obtain seven new transcriptomes from the blood, liver, or jaws of four turtles, a caiman, a lizard, and a lungfish. We used a phylogenomic dataset based on 248 nuclear genes (187,026 nucleotide sites) for 16 vertebrate taxa to resolve the origins of turtles. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian concatenation analyses and species tree approaches performed under the most realistic models of the nucleotide and amino acid substitution processes unambiguously support turtles as a sister group to birds and crocodiles. The use of more simplistic models of nucleotide substitution for both concatenation and species tree reconstruction methods leads to the artefactual grouping of turtles and crocodiles, most likely because of substitution saturation at third codon positions. Relaxed molecular clock methods estimate the divergence between turtles and archosaurs around 255 million years ago. The most recent common ancestor of living turtles, corresponding to the split between Pleurodira and Cryptodira, is estimated to have occurred around 157 million years ago, in the Upper Jurassic period. This is a more recent estimate than previously reported, and questions the interpretation of controversial Lower Jurassic fossils as being part of the extant turtles radiation.ConclusionsThese results provide a phylogenetic framework and timescale with which to interpret the evolution of the peculiar morphological, developmental, and molecular features of turtles within the amniotes.

Project description:The genomic prediction of phenotypes and breeding values in animals and plants has developed rapidly into its own research field. Results of genomic prediction studies are often difficult to compare because data simulation varies, real or simulated data are not fully described, and not all relevant results are reported. In addition, some new methods have been compared only in limited genetic architectures, leading to potentially misleading conclusions. In this article we review simulation procedures, discuss validation and reporting of results, and apply benchmark procedures for a variety of genomic prediction methods in simulated and real example data. Plant and animal breeding programs are being transformed by the use of genomic data, which are becoming widely available and cost-effective to predict genetic merit. A large number of genomic prediction studies have been published using both simulated and real data. The relative novelty of this area of research has made the development of scientific conventions difficult with regard to description of the real data, simulation of genomes, validation and reporting of results, and forward in time methods. In this review article we discuss the generation of simulated genotype and phenotype data, using approaches such as the coalescent and forward in time simulation. We outline ways to validate simulated data and genomic prediction results, including cross-validation. The accuracy and bias of genomic prediction are highlighted as performance indicators that should be reported. We suggest that a measure of relatedness between the reference and validation individuals be reported, as its impact on the accuracy of genomic prediction is substantial. A large number of methods were compared in example simulated and real (pine and wheat) data sets, all of which are publicly available. In our limited simulations, most methods performed similarly in traits with a large number of quantitative trait loci (QTL), whereas in traits with fewer QTL variable selection did have some advantages. In the real data sets examined here all methods had very similar accuracies. We conclude that no single method can serve as a benchmark for genomic prediction. We recommend comparing accuracy and bias of new methods to results from genomic best linear prediction and a variable selection approach (e.g., BayesB), because, together, these methods are appropriate for a range of genetic architectures. An accompanying article in this issue provides a comprehensive review of genomic prediction methods and discusses a selection of topics related to application of genomic prediction in plants and animals.

Dataset Information

Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets