4.5 Article

The contrasted evolutionary fates of deep-sea chemosynthetic mussels (Bivalvia, Bathymodiolinae)

期刊

ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 3, 期 14, 页码 4748-4766

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.749

关键词

Bathymodiolinae; chemosynthetic ecosystem; deep-sea; evolution

资金

  1. Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversite [FRB AAP-IN-2009-009]
  2. Consortium National de Recherche en Genomique
  3. Service de Systematique Moleculaire of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle [CNRS UMS 2700, 2005/67]
  4. CNRS
  5. Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle
  6. INRA
  7. CEA (Genoscope)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bathymodiolinae are giant mussels that were discovered at hydrothermal vents and harboring chemosynthetic symbionts. Due to their close phylogenetic relationship with seep species and tiny mussels from organic substrates, it was hypothesized that they gradually evolved from shallow to deeper environments, and specialized in decaying organic remains, then in seeps, and finally colonized deep-sea vents. Here, we present a multigene phylogeny that reveals that most of the genera are polyphyletic and/or paraphyletic. The robustness of the phylogeny allows us to revise the genus-level classification. Organic remains are robustly supported as the ancestral habitat for Bathymodiolinae. However, rather than a single step toward colonization of vents and seeps, recurrent habitat shifts from organic substrates to vents and seeps occurred during evolution, and never the reverse. This new phylogenetic framework challenges the gradualist scenarios from shallow to deep. Mussels from organic remains tolerate a large range of ecological conditions and display a spectacular species diversity contrary to vent mussels, although such habitats are yet underexplored compared to vents and seeps. Overall, our data suggest that for deep-sea mussels, the high specialization to vent habitats provides ecological success in this harsh habitat but also brings the lineage to a kind of evolutionary dead end.

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

4.5
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