Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Phylogenomics of Lophotrochozoa with consideration of systematic error
University of Alabama.
Natural History Museum, Department of Research and Collections, University of Oslo.
Johannes Gutenberg University.
Auburn University.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Systematic Biology, ISSN 1063-5157, E-ISSN 1076-836X, Vol. 66, no 2, 256-282 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Phylogenomic studies have improved understanding of deep metazoan phylogeny and show promise for resolving incongruences among analyses based on limited numbers of loci. One region of the animal tree that has been especially difficult to resolve, even with phylogenomic approaches, is relationships within Lophotrochozoa (the animal clade that includes molluscs, annelids, and flatworms among others). Lack of resolution in phylogenomic analyses could be due to insufficient phylogenetic signal, limitations in taxon and/or gene sampling, or systematic error. Here, we investigated why lophotrochozoan phylogeny has been such a difficult question to answer by identifying and reducing sources of systematic error. We supplemented existing data with 32 new transcriptomes spanning the diversity of Lophotrochozoa and constructed a new set of Lophotrochozoa-specific core orthologs. Of these, 638 orthologous groups (OGs) passed strict screening for paralogy using a tree-based approach. In order to reduce possible sources of systematic error, we calculated branch-length heterogeneity, evolutionary rate, percent missing data, compositional bias, and saturation for each OG and analyzed increasingly stricter subsets of only the most stringent (best) OGs for these five variables. Principal component analysis of the values for each factor examined for each OG revealed that compositional heterogeneity and average patristic distance contributed most to the variance observed along the first principal component while branch-length heterogeneity and, to a lesser extent, saturation contributed most to the variance observed along the second. Missing data did not strongly contribute to either. Additional sensitivity analyses examined effects of removing taxa with heterogeneous branch lengths, large amounts of missing data, and compositional heterogeneity. Although our analyses do not unambiguously resolve lophotrochozoan phylogeny, we advance the field by reducing the list of viable hypotheses. Moreover, our systematic approach for dissection of phylogenomic data can be applied to explore sources of incongruence and poor support in any phylogenomic dataset. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 66, no 2, 256-282 p.
National Category
Zoology
Research subject
Diversity of life
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:nrm:diva-1843DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syw079OAI: oai:DiVA.org:nrm-1843DiVA: diva2:1034701
Available from: 2016-10-12 Created: 2016-10-05 Last updated: 2017-03-23Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Cannon, Johanna
By organisation
Department of Zoology
In the same journal
Systematic Biology
Zoology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 26 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf