Four myriapod relatives – but who are sisters? No end to debates on relationships among the four major myriapod subgroups

BMC Evolutionary Biology

Alexander Donath¹  Lars Podsiadlowski¹  Karen Meusemann²  Guanliang Meng³  Makiko Fukui⁴  Robert M. Waterhouse⁵  Xin Zhou⁶  Shanlin Liu⁶  Alexander Böhm⁷  Daniela Bartel⁷  Günther Pass⁷  Manfred Walzl⁷  Nikolaus U. Szucsich⁸  Oliver Macek⁸  Alexander Blanke⁹  Simon Grove^1,10  Björn M. Von Reumont^1,11  Shigekazu Tomizuka^1,12  Yasutaka Nakagaki^1,13  Kaoru Sekiya^1,13  Ryuichiro Machida^1,13  Bernhard Misof^1,14 

[1] Centre for Molecular Biodiversity Research, Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, D-53113, Bonn, Germany;Centre for Molecular Biodiversity Research, Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, D-53113, Bonn, Germany;Department of Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, Institute of Biology I (Zoology), University of Freiburg, D-79104, Freiburg, Germany;Australian National Insect Collection, National Research Collections Australia, CSIRO, ACT, 2601, Canberra, Australia;Centre of Taxonomy and Evolutionary Research, Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, D-53113, Bonn, Germany;Department of Biology, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Ehime University, Bunkyo-cho, 790-8577, Matsuyama, Ehime, Japan;Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne and Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland;Department of Entomology, China Agricultural University, 100193, Beijing, People’s Republic of China;Department of Evolutionary Biology, University of Vienna, A-1090, Vienna, Austria;Department of Evolutionary Biology, University of Vienna, A-1090, Vienna, Austria;Central Research Laboratories, Natural History Museum of Vienna, A-1010, Vienna, Austria;Institute for Zoology, Biocenter, University of Cologne, D-50674, Cologne, Germany;Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Animal Ecology, University of Bonn, D-53121, Bonn, Germany;Invertebrate Zoology, Collections and Research Facility, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, 7018, Rosny, Tasmania, Australia;LOEWE Centre for Translational Biodiversity Genomics (LOEWE TBG), Senckenberganlage 25, 60325, Frankfurt, Germany;Animal Venomics, Institute for Insect Biotechnology, University of Giessen, Heinrich Buff Ring 26-32, D-35394, Giessen, Germany;Matsunoyamamatsuguchi, Tokamachi, 942-1411, Niigata, Japan;Sugadaira Research Station, Mountain Science Center, University of Tsukuba, Sugadaira, Ueda, 386-2204, Nagano, Japan;Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, D-53113, Bonn, Germany;

关键词: Internal rooting;    Phylogenetics;    Arthropod phylogeny;    Quartet topology;    Conflict;    Confounding signal;    Transcriptomes;    RNA-Seq;    Phylogenomics;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12862-020-01699-0

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundPhylogenetic relationships among the myriapod subgroups Chilopoda, Diplopoda, Symphyla and Pauropoda are still not robustly resolved. The first phylogenomic study covering all subgroups resolved phylogenetic relationships congruently to morphological evidence but is in conflict with most previously published phylogenetic trees based on diverse molecular data. Outgroup choice and long-branch attraction effects were stated as possible explanations for these incongruencies. In this study, we addressed these issues by extending the myriapod and outgroup taxon sampling using transcriptome data.ResultsWe generated new transcriptome data of 42 panarthropod species, including all four myriapod subgroups and additional outgroup taxa. Our taxon sampling was complemented by published transcriptome and genome data resulting in a supermatrix covering 59 species. We compiled two data sets, the first with a full coverage of genes per species (292 single-copy protein-coding genes), the second with a less stringent coverage (988 genes). We inferred phylogenetic relationships among myriapods using different data types, tree inference, and quartet computation approaches. Our results unambiguously support monophyletic Mandibulata and Myriapoda. Our analyses clearly showed that there is strong signal for a single unrooted topology, but a sensitivity of the position of the internal root on the choice of outgroups. However, we observe strong evidence for a clade Pauropoda+Symphyla, as well as for a clade Chilopoda+Diplopoda.ConclusionsOur best quartet topology is incongruent with current morphological phylogenies which were supported in another phylogenomic study. AU tests and quartet mapping reject the quartet topology congruent to trees inferred with morphological characters. Moreover, quartet mapping shows that confounding signal present in the data set is sufficient to explain the weak signal for the quartet topology derived from morphological characters. Although outgroup choice affects results, our study could narrow possible trees to derivatives of a single quartet topology. For highly disputed relationships, we propose to apply a series of tests (AU and quartet mapping), since results of such tests allow to narrow down possible relationships and to rule out confounding signal.

【 授权许可】

CC BY