4.8 Article

A rooted phylogeny resolves early bacterial evolution

期刊

SCIENCE
卷 372, 期 6542, 页码 588-+

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/science.abe0511

关键词

-

资金

  1. Royal Society Research Grant
  2. Royal Society University Research Fellowship
  3. NERC [NE/P00251X/1]
  4. European Research Council under the European Union [714774, GINOP-2.3.2.-15-201600057]
  5. Swedish Research Council (VR) [2016-03559]
  6. NWO-I foundation of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (WISE fellowship)
  7. Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship [FL150100038]
  8. Swedish Research Council [2016-03559] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council
  9. European Research Council (ERC) [714774] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rooted bacterial tree is essential for understanding early evolution, with most gene families showing evidence of horizontal gene transfer. The last bacterial common ancestor is suggested to be a flagellated, rod-shaped double-membraned organism. Contrary to recent proposals, the Candidate Phyla Radiation is not placed at the base, but branches sister to Chloroflexota within Terrabacteria.
A rooted bacterial tree is necessary to understand early evolution, but the position of the root is contested. Here, we model the evolution of 11,272 gene families to identify the root, extent of horizontal gene transfer (HGT), and the nature of the last bacterial common ancestor (LBCA). Our analyses root the tree between the major clades Terrabacteria and Gracilicutes and suggest that LBCA was a free-living flagellated, rod-shaped double-membraned organism. Contrary to recent proposals, our analyses reject a basal placement of the Candidate Phyla Radiation, which instead branches sister to Chloroflexota within Terrabacteria. While most gene families (92%) have evidence of HGT, overall, two-thirds of gene transmissions have been vertical, suggesting that a rooted tree provides a meaningful frame of reference for interpreting bacterial evolution.

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

4.8
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