4.7 Article

Pushing short DNA fragments to the limit: Phylogenetic relationships of 'hydrobioid' gastropods (Caenogastropoda: Rissooidea)

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 66, 期 3, 页码 715-736

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2012.10.025

关键词

Gastropoda; Rissooidea; Hydrobiidae; Systematics; Structural alignment; Phylogenetic signal; Long-branch attraction

资金

  1. German Science Foundation [WI 1902/8-1, WI 1902/8-2, HA 4752/2-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although phylogenetic studies are increasingly utilizing multi-locus datasets, a review of GenBank data for the Gastropoda indicates a strong bias towards a few short gene fragments (most commonly COI, LSU rRNA, and SSU rRNA). This is particularly the case for the Rissooidea, one of the largest and most taxonomically difficult gastropod superfamilies. Here we analyze fragments of these three genes from 90 species to determine whether they can well resolve higher relationships within this superfamily, whether structurally aligned sequence datasets increase phylogenetic signal, and whether the inclusion of highly variable regions introduces noise. We also used the resulting phylogenetic data in combination with morphological/anatomical evidence to re-evaluate the taxonomic status of 'hydrobioid' family-level groups. Our results indicate that all three of the alignment strategies that were used resulted in phylogenies having similar signal levels. However, there was a slight advantage to using structural alignment for inferring family-level relationships. Moreover, the set of 'standard' gastropod genes supported recognition of many previously recognized families and provides new insight into the systematics of several problematic groups. However, some family-group taxa were unresolved and the relationships among families were also poorly supported, suggesting a need for more extensive sampling and inclusion of additional genes. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据