4.8 Article

Red and Green Algal Monophyly and Extensive Gene Sharing Found in a Rich Repertoire of Red Algal Genes

Journal

CURRENT BIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 328-333

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.01.037

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [EF 08-27023, DEB 09-36884, NSF OCE-821374, MCB 09-46528, DEB 10-26425]
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  3. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica (ANPCyT)
  4. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET) (Argentina)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Plantae comprising red, green (including land plants), and glaucophyte algae are postulated to have a single common ancestor that is the founding lineage of photosynthetic eukaryotes [1, 2]. However, recent multiprotein phylogenies provide little [3, 4] or no [5, 6] support for this hypothesis. This may reflect limited complete genome data available for red algae, currently only the highly reduced genome of Cyanidioschyzon merolae [7], a reticulate gene ancestry [5], or variable gene divergence rates that mislead phylogenetic inference [8]. Here, using novel genome data from the mesophilic Porphyridium cruentum and Calliarthron tuberculosum, we analyze 60,000 novel red algal genes to test the monophyly of red + green (RG) algae and their extent of gene sharing with other lineages. Using a gene-by-gene approach, we find an emerging signal of RG monophyly (supported by similar to 50% of the examined protein phylogenies) that increases with the number of distinct phyla and terminal taxa in the analysis. A total of 1,808 phylogenies show evidence of gene sharing between Plantae and other lineages. We demonstrate that a rich mesophilic red algal gene repertoire is crucial for testing controversial issues in eukaryote evolution and for understanding the complex patterns of gene inheritance in protists.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available