4.1 Article

Insights into the evolutionary origin and genome architecture of the unicellular opisthokonts Capsaspora owczarzaki and Sphaeroforma arctica

期刊

JOURNAL OF EUKARYOTIC MICROBIOLOGY
卷 53, 期 5, 页码 379-384

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2006.00118.x

关键词

EFL gene; genome size; molecular systematics; pulsed-field gel electrophoresis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular phylogenetic analyses have recently shown that the unicellular amoeboid protist Capsaspora owczarzaki is unlikely to be a nucleariid or an ichthyosporean as previously described, but is more closely related to Metazoa, Choanoflagellata, and Ichthyosporea. However, the specific phylogenetic relationship of Capsaspora to other protist opisthokont lineages was poorly resolved. To test these earlier results we have expanded both the taxonomic sampling and the number of genes from opisthokont unicellular lineages. We have sequenced the protein-coding genes elongation factor 1-alpha (EF1-alpha) and heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) from C. owczarzaki and the ichthyosporean Sphaeroforma arctica. Our maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian analyses of a concatenated alignment of EF1-alpha, Hsp70, and actin protein sequences with a better sampling of opisthokont-related protist lineages indicate that C. owczarzaki is not clearly allied with any of the unicellular opisthokonts, but represents an independent unicellular lineage closely related to animals and choanoflagellates. Moreover, we have found that the ichthyosporean S. arctica possesses an EF-like (EFL) gene copy instead of the canonical EF1-alpha, the first so far described in an ichthyosporean. A maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis shows that the EF-like gene of S. arctica strongly groups with the EF-like genes from choanoflagellates. Finally, to begin characterizing the Capsaspora genome, we have performed pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) analyses, which indicate that its genome has at least 12 chromosomes with a total genome size in the range of 22-25 Mb.

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

4.1
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