4.8 Review

Phylogenomics of eukaryotes: Impact of missing data on large alignments

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 21, 期 9, 页码 1740-1752

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msh182

关键词

molecular phylogeny; multi-gene analysis; missing data; choanoflagellata

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [AI48594, AI47087, AI147079, AI46418] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Resolving the relationships between Metazoa and other eukaryotic groups as well as between metazoan phyla is central to the understanding of the origin and evolution of animals. The current view is based on limited data sets, either a single gene with many species (e.g., ribosomal RNA) or many genes but with only a few species. Because a reliable phylogenetic inference simultaneously requires numerous genes and numerous species, we assembled a very large data set containing 129 orthologous proteins (similar to30,000 aligned amino acid positions) for 36 eukaryotic species. Included in the alignments are data from the choanoflagellate Monosiga ovata, obtained through the sequencing of about 1,000 cDNAs. We provide conclusive support for choanoflagellates as the closest relative of animals and for fungi as the second closest. The monophyly of Plantae and chromalveolates was recovered but without strong statistical support. Within animals, in contrast to the monophyly of Coelomata observed in several recent large-scale analyses, we recovered a paraphyletic Coelamata, with nematodes and platyhelminths nested within. To include a diverse sample of organisms, data from EST projects were used for several species, resulting in a large amount of missing data in our alignment (about 25%). By using different approaches, we verify that the inferred phylogeny is not sensitive to these missing data. Therefore, this large data set provides a reliable phylogenetic framework for studying eukaryotic and animal evolution and will be easily extendable when large amounts of sequence information become available from a broader taxonomic range.

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