Phylogenomic Analyses Support Traditional Relationships within Cnidaria.
PLoS ONE, October 2015
Felipe Zapata, Freya E. Goetz, Stephen A. Smith, Mark Howison, Stefan Siebert, Samuel H. Church, Steven M. Sanders, Cheryl Lewis Ames, Catherine S. McFadden, Scott C. France, Marymegan Daly, Allen G. Collins, Steven H. D. Haddock, Casey W. Dunn, Paulyn Cartwright, Zapata, Felipe, Goetz, Freya E, Smith, Stephen A, Howison, Mark, Siebert, Stefan, Church, Samuel H, Sanders, Steven M, Ames, Cheryl Lewis, McFadden, Catherine S, France, Scott C, Daly, Marymegan, Collins, Allen G, Haddock, Steven H D, Dunn, Casey W, Cartwright, Paulyn, Robert E. Steele
Cnidaria, the sister group to Bilateria, is a highly diverse group of animals in terms of morphology, lifecycles, ecology, and development. How this diversity originated and evolved is not well understood because phylogenetic relationships among major cnidarian lineages are unclear, and recent studies present contrasting phylogenetic hypotheses. Here, we use transcriptome data from 15 newly-sequenced species in combination with 26 publicly available genomes and transcriptomes to assess phylogenetic relationships among major cnidarian lineages. Phylogenetic analyses using different partition schemes and models of molecular evolution, as well as topology tests for alternative phylogenetic relationships, support the monophyly of Medusozoa, Anthozoa, Octocorallia, Hydrozoa, and a clade consisting of Staurozoa, Cubozoa, and Scyphozoa. Support for the monophyly of Hexacorallia is weak due to the equivocal position of Ceriantharia. Taken together, these results further resolve deep cnidarian relationships, largely support traditional phylogenetic views on relationships, and provide a historical framework for studying the evolutionary processes involved in one of the most ancient animal radiations.
|Members of the public||62||53%|
|Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors)||2||2%|
|Readers by professional status||Count||As %|
|Student > Ph. D. Student||46||34%|
|Student > Master||21||16%|
|Student > Bachelor||20||15%|
|Student > Doctoral Student||7||5%|
|Readers by discipline||Count||As %|
|Agricultural and Biological Sciences||99||74%|
|Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology||16||12%|
|Earth and Planetary Sciences||5||4%|