DOCSLIB.ORG

4/9/15 1 Alveolates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
4/9/15 1 Alveolates 4/9/15 Bayli Russ ALVEOLATES April 9, 2015 WHAT IS IT? ¡ Alveolates- Major superphylum of protists ¡ Group of single-celled eukaryotes that get their nutrition by predation, photoautotrophy, and intracellular parasitism ¡ Spherical basophilic organisms (6-9 µm diameter) ¡ Most notable shared characteristic is presence of cortical alveoli, flattened vesicles packed into linear layer supporting the membrane, typically forming a flexible pellicle (Leander, 2008) WHAT IS IT? ¡ 3 main subgroups: § Ciliatesà predators that inhabit intestinal tracts and flesh § Dinoflagellatesà mostly free living predators or photoautotrophs, release toxins § Apicomplexansà obligate parasite; invade host cells ¡ Several other lineages such as: § Colpodella § Chromera § Colponema § Ellobiopsids § Oxyrrhis § Rastrimonas § Parvilucifera § Perkinsus (Leander, 2008) 1 4/9/15 HOW DOES IT KILL AMPHIBIANS? ¡ Cause infection and disease in amphibian populations § Infection = parasite occurs in host; occupying intestinal lumen § Disease = advanced infection; presence of spores in tissues; occupying intestinal mucosa, liver, skin, rectum, mesentery, adipose tissue, pancreas, spleen, kidney, and somatic musculature ¡ Effects on organs § Filters into host’s internal organs in mass amounts § Causes organ enlargement and severe tissue alteration § Obliterates kidney and liver structure § System shut-down = DEATH ¡ How its introduced to environment § Birds § Insects ¡ How it spreads/transmission: § Ingestion of spores § Feces of infected individuals § Tissues from dead/dying infected tadpoles § Free-floating spores (Cook, 2008) HOW DOES IT KILL AMPHIBIANS? ¡ Environmental influence § pH of water (5.5-7.5 = mass zoospore hatching) § Salt = mass zoospore hatching § Zoospores = disease condition = DEATH ¡ Variety of host species ¡ Age of amphibian § Kills off tadpoles § Sometimes persists through metamorphosis § Infection in adults ¡ Very high rates of mortality (Cook, 2008) EVIDENCE OF DIE-OFFS OR DECLINES? ¡ (Green, 2002): § Severe infection to be the cause of 2 mortality events and contributor to 2 other mortality events occurring only in Ranid tadpoles in MN, MI, NC, and NH § Occurred in no onset pattern & each of the 4 events occurred in 4 separate months § Observations suggesting that infection causes >95% mortality rate in this population of tadpoles § Parasite said to be undetermined, but resembles Dermocystidium ¡ (Jones et al. 2012): § Analysis of rRNA sequence reveal that the organism from Green’s experiment is actually most closely related to type of alveolate protozoa 2 4/9/15 EVIDENCE OF DIE-OFFS OR DECLINES? ¡ (Landsberg et al., 2013): § Multispecies amphibian larval mortality event § American bullfrogs (L. catesbeianus) § Southern leopard frogs (L. sphenocephalus) § Gopher frogs (L. capito) § Occurred in Florida § Only major events due to alveolate parasite § Die-off in pond § Infection increased since survey § No older bullfrogs 2 months later EVIDENCE OF DIE-OFFS OR DECLINES? ¡ (Davis et al., 2007): § Mortality event of southern leopard frog (R. sphenocephala) § Northeast Georgia § Surveyed 5 ponds § 25% of 87 specimens were infected § Complete, rapid die-off of R. Sphenocephala tadpoles in one pond while surveys were still going on § All organs infected § Mainly liver and kidneys § Swelling of organs EVIDENCE OF DIE-OFFS OR DECLINES? ¡ (Cook, 2008): § Mass mortality of gopher frog (R. sevosa) tadpoles § Infection by Dermomycoides sp. § Primary breeding pond in Mississippi § Zoospore penetration § Death within weeks post-embryo § Lab infections § Infected species of Rana, Acris, Hyla, Pseudacris, and Gastrophryne § Disease condition in Hyla gratiosa, R. capito, R. catesbeiana, R. clamitans, R. sevosa, and R. sphenocephala § Documented places of infection and disease: § Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina and Minnesota § Documented species infected and deceased from infection: § R. servosa, R. sylvatica, R. sphenocephala, R. septrionalis, R. clamitans, R. catesbeiana and P. crucifer 3 4/9/15 WHY IS IT THE MOST IMPORTANT? ¡ New and emerging parasite ¡ All species are potential hosts, not just specific species as seen in Ranavirus ¡ No limit on occurrence to a certain time period or place § Reported in variety of geological areas & in different seasons § No pattern of environmental requirements ¡ Overwhelms populations with little to no recovery after infection occurs § No way to combat it ¡ Completely destroys the organs causing failure ¡ Alveolate infections are moving/spreading geographically § First reported event in New Hampshire and now has reached Alaska, Georgia, Florida, Maine, Mississippi, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Virginia ¡ Large realm of unknown § Halts prevention REFERENCES ¡ Cook JO (2008) Transmission and occurrence of Dermomy- coides sp. in Rana sevosa and other ranids in the North Central Gulf of Mexico States. MS thesis, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS. ¡ Davis, Andrew K. et al. (2007) Discovery of a Novel Alveolate Pathogen Affecting Southern Leopard Frogs in Georgia: Description of the Disease and Host Effects. EcoHealth, 4: 310-317. ¡ Green DE, Converse KA, Schrader AK (2002) Epizootiology of sixty-four amphibian mortality events in the USA, 1996−2001. Ann NY Acad Sci 969:323−339. ¡ Jones, E.B. et al. (2012) Granulomatous myositis associated with a novel alveolate pathogen in an adult southern leopard frog (Lithobates sphenocephalus). Dis Aquat Org, 102: 163-167. ¡ Landsberg, J.H. et al. (2013) Co-infection by alveolate parasites and frog virus 3-like ranavirus during an amphibian larval mortality event in Florida, USA. Dis Aquat Org, 4: 88-99. ¡ Leander, Brian S. 2008. Alveolates. Alveolata. Version 16 September 2008 (under construction). http://tolweb.org/Alveolates/ 2379/2008.09.16 in The Tree of Life Web Project, http://tolweb.org/ 4 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Molecular Data and the Evolutionary History of Dinoflagellates by Juan Fernando Saldarriaga Echavarria Diplom, Ruprecht-Karls-Un
    Molecular data and the evolutionary history of dinoflagellates by Juan Fernando Saldarriaga Echavarria Diplom, Ruprecht-Karls-Universitat Heidelberg, 1993 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Botany We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 2003 © Juan Fernando Saldarriaga Echavarria, 2003 ABSTRACT New sequences of ribosomal and protein genes were combined with available morphological and paleontological data to produce a phylogenetic framework for dinoflagellates. The evolutionary history of some of the major morphological features of the group was then investigated in the light of that framework. Phylogenetic trees of dinoflagellates based on the small subunit ribosomal RNA gene (SSU) are generally poorly resolved but include many well- supported clades, and while combined analyses of SSU and LSU (large subunit ribosomal RNA) improve the support for several nodes, they are still generally unsatisfactory. Protein-gene based trees lack the degree of species representation necessary for meaningful in-group phylogenetic analyses, but do provide important insights to the phylogenetic position of dinoflagellates as a whole and on the identity of their close relatives. Molecular data agree with paleontology in suggesting an early evolutionary radiation of the group, but whereas paleontological data include only taxa with fossilizable cysts, the new data examined here establish that this radiation event included all dinokaryotic lineages, including athecate forms. Plastids were lost and replaced many times in dinoflagellates, a situation entirely unique for this group. Histones could well have been lost earlier in the lineage than previously assumed.
    [Show full text]
  • (Alveolata) As Inferred from Hsp90 and Actin Phylogenies1
    J. Phycol. 40, 341–350 (2004) r 2004 Phycological Society of America DOI: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2004.03129.x EARLY EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF DINOFLAGELLATES AND APICOMPLEXANS (ALVEOLATA) AS INFERRED FROM HSP90 AND ACTIN PHYLOGENIES1 Brian S. Leander2 and Patrick J. Keeling Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Program in Evolutionary Biology, Departments of Botany and Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Three extremely diverse groups of unicellular The Alveolata is one of the most biologically diverse eukaryotes comprise the Alveolata: ciliates, dino- supergroups of eukaryotic microorganisms, consisting flagellates, and apicomplexans. The vast phenotypic of ciliates, dinoflagellates, apicomplexans, and several distances between the three groups along with the minor lineages. Although molecular phylogenies un- enigmatic distribution of plastids and the economic equivocally support the monophyly of alveolates, and medical importance of several representative members of the group share only a few derived species (e.g. Plasmodium, Toxoplasma, Perkinsus, and morphological features, such as distinctive patterns of Pfiesteria) have stimulated a great deal of specula- cortical vesicles (syn. alveoli or amphiesmal vesicles) tion on the early evolutionary history of alveolates. subtending the plasma membrane and presumptive A robust phylogenetic framework for alveolate pinocytotic structures, called ‘‘micropores’’ (Cavalier- diversity will provide the context necessary for Smith 1993, Siddall et al. 1997, Patterson
    [Show full text]
  • Predatory Flagellates – the New Recently Discovered Deep Branches of the Eukaryotic Tree and Their Evolutionary and Ecological Significance
    Protistology 14 (1), 15–22 (2020) Protistology Predatory flagellates – the new recently discovered deep branches of the eukaryotic tree and their evolutionary and ecological significance Denis V. Tikhonenkov Papanin Institute for Biology of Inland Waters, Russian Academy of Sciences, Borok, 152742, Russia | Submitted March 20, 2020 | Accepted April 6, 2020 | Summary Predatory protists are poorly studied, although they are often representing important deep-branching evolutionary lineages and new eukaryotic supergroups. This short review/opinion paper is inspired by the recent discoveries of various predatory flagellates, which form sister groups of the giant eukaryotic clusters on phylogenetic trees, and illustrate an ancestral state of one or another supergroup of eukaryotes. Here we discuss their evolutionary and ecological relevance and show that the study of such protists may be essential in addressing previously puzzling evolutionary problems, such as the origin of multicellular animals, the plastid spread trajectory, origins of photosynthesis and parasitism, evolution of mitochondrial genomes. Key words: evolution of eukaryotes, heterotrophic flagellates, mitochondrial genome, origin of animals, photosynthesis, predatory protists, tree of life Predatory flagellates and diversity of eu- of the hidden diversity of protists (Moon-van der karyotes Staay et al., 2000; López-García et al., 2001; Edg- comb et al., 2002; Massana et al., 2004; Richards The well-studied multicellular animals, plants and Bass, 2005; Tarbe et al., 2011; de Vargas et al., and fungi immediately come to mind when we hear 2015). In particular, several prevailing and very abun- the term “eukaryotes”. However, these groups of dant ribogroups such as MALV, MAST, MAOP, organisms represent a minority in the real diversity MAFO (marine alveolates, stramenopiles, opistho- of evolutionary lineages of eukaryotes.
    [Show full text]
  • A KEY to the COMMON PARASITIC PROTOZOANS of NORTH AMERICAN FISHES Thomas L. Wellborn, Jr. and Wilmer A. Rogers Zoology-Ent
    . A KEY to the COMMON PARASITIC PROTOZOANS of NORTH AMERICAN FISHES Thomas L. Wellborn, Jr. and Wilmer A. Rogers Zoology-Entomology Department Series Fisheries No. 4 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AUBURN UNIVERSITY E. V. Smith, Director March 1966 Auburn, Alabama (Revised June 1970) A KEY TO THE COMMON PARASITIC PROTOZOANS 1 OF NORTH AMERICAN FISHES Thomas L. Wellborn, Jr. 2/— and Wilmer A. Rogers 3/— Private, state, and federal fish husbandry industries suffer great losses each year because of disease and parasites. The parasitic protozoans included in this key are the ones most commonly associated with fish mortalities. A total of 23 genera of parasitic protozoans may be identified by use of this key. The fish protozoan parasites are responsible for a large part of the mortalities that occur at fish hatcheries each year. This is because they are capable of building up tremendous populations within relatively short periods of time, and some are capable of causing extreme damage to fish. Proper treatment and control of the diseases caused by the various protozoans are impossible without knowing their identity. This key will be helpful to fishery workers in identifying the more common genera. It must be remembered, however, that a microscope and knowledge of its use are absolute prerequisites for identifying protozoans. Certain parasitic protozoans cannot be identified below the rank of Order - without use of special techniques; therefore, all known genera are not included in the herein reported key. Protozoans belonging to such Orders should be sent to a specialist for identification. 1/ Supported in part by Southeastern Cooperative Fish Parasite and Disease Project (Fish Restoration Funds).
    [Show full text]
  • Protist Phylogeny and the High-Level Classification of Protozoa
    Europ. J. Protistol. 39, 338–348 (2003) © Urban & Fischer Verlag http://www.urbanfischer.de/journals/ejp Protist phylogeny and the high-level classification of Protozoa Thomas Cavalier-Smith Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK; E-mail: [email protected] Received 1 September 2003; 29 September 2003. Accepted: 29 September 2003 Protist large-scale phylogeny is briefly reviewed and a revised higher classification of the kingdom Pro- tozoa into 11 phyla presented. Complementary gene fusions reveal a fundamental bifurcation among eu- karyotes between two major clades: the ancestrally uniciliate (often unicentriolar) unikonts and the an- cestrally biciliate bikonts, which undergo ciliary transformation by converting a younger anterior cilium into a dissimilar older posterior cilium. Unikonts comprise the ancestrally unikont protozoan phylum Amoebozoa and the opisthokonts (kingdom Animalia, phylum Choanozoa, their sisters or ancestors; and kingdom Fungi). They share a derived triple-gene fusion, absent from bikonts. Bikonts contrastingly share a derived gene fusion between dihydrofolate reductase and thymidylate synthase and include plants and all other protists, comprising the protozoan infrakingdoms Rhizaria [phyla Cercozoa and Re- taria (Radiozoa, Foraminifera)] and Excavata (phyla Loukozoa, Metamonada, Euglenozoa, Percolozoa), plus the kingdom Plantae [Viridaeplantae, Rhodophyta (sisters); Glaucophyta], the chromalveolate clade, and the protozoan phylum Apusozoa (Thecomonadea, Diphylleida). Chromalveolates comprise kingdom Chromista (Cryptista, Heterokonta, Haptophyta) and the protozoan infrakingdom Alveolata [phyla Cilio- phora and Miozoa (= Protalveolata, Dinozoa, Apicomplexa)], which diverged from a common ancestor that enslaved a red alga and evolved novel plastid protein-targeting machinery via the host rough ER and the enslaved algal plasma membrane (periplastid membrane).
    [Show full text]
  • The Revised Classification of Eukaryotes
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231610049 The Revised Classification of Eukaryotes Article in Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology · September 2012 DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x · Source: PubMed CITATIONS READS 961 2,825 25 authors, including: Sina M Adl Alastair Simpson University of Saskatchewan Dalhousie University 118 PUBLICATIONS 8,522 CITATIONS 264 PUBLICATIONS 10,739 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Christopher E Lane David Bass University of Rhode Island Natural History Museum, London 82 PUBLICATIONS 6,233 CITATIONS 464 PUBLICATIONS 7,765 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Biodiversity and ecology of soil taste amoeba View project Predator control of diversity View project All content following this page was uploaded by Smirnov Alexey on 25 October 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. The Journal of Published by the International Society of Eukaryotic Microbiology Protistologists J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 59(5), 2012 pp. 429–493 © 2012 The Author(s) Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology © 2012 International Society of Protistologists DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x The Revised Classification of Eukaryotes SINA M. ADL,a,b ALASTAIR G. B. SIMPSON,b CHRISTOPHER E. LANE,c JULIUS LUKESˇ,d DAVID BASS,e SAMUEL S. BOWSER,f MATTHEW W. BROWN,g FABIEN BURKI,h MICAH DUNTHORN,i VLADIMIR HAMPL,j AARON HEISS,b MONA HOPPENRATH,k ENRIQUE LARA,l LINE LE GALL,m DENIS H. LYNN,n,1 HILARY MCMANUS,o EDWARD A. D.
    [Show full text]
  • New Phylogenomic Analysis of the Enigmatic Phylum Telonemia Further Resolves the Eukaryote Tree of Life
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/403329; this version posted August 30, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. New phylogenomic analysis of the enigmatic phylum Telonemia further resolves the eukaryote tree of life Jürgen F. H. Strassert1, Mahwash Jamy1, Alexander P. Mylnikov2, Denis V. Tikhonenkov2, Fabien Burki1,* 1Department of Organismal Biology, Program in Systematic Biology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden 2Institute for Biology of Inland Waters, Russian Academy of Sciences, Borok, Yaroslavl Region, Russia *Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected] Keywords: TSAR, Telonemia, phylogenomics, eukaryotes, tree of life, protists bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/403329; this version posted August 30, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Abstract The broad-scale tree of eukaryotes is constantly improving, but the evolutionary origin of several major groups remains unknown. Resolving the phylogenetic position of these ‘orphan’ groups is important, especially those that originated early in evolution, because they represent missing evolutionary links between established groups. Telonemia is one such orphan taxon for which little is known. The group is composed of molecularly diverse biflagellated protists, often prevalent although not abundant in aquatic environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Relationship Between the Flagellates Andthe Ciliates
    MICROBIOLOGICAL REVIEWS, Dec. 1992, p. 529-542 Vol. 56, No. 4 0146-0749/92/040529-14$02.00/0 Copyright © 1992, American Society for Microbiology Relationship between the Flagellates and the Ciliates ROBERT EDWARD LEE'* AND PAUL KUGRENS2 Department ofAnatomy and Neurobiologyl* and Department ofBiology, 2 Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 529 COMPARISONS BASED ON MORPHOLOGICAL AND CYTOLOGICAL STRUCTURES .................529 Dinoflagellates and Ciliates ....................................................................... 529 Comparison of dinoflagellates and ciliates ....................................................................... 531 (i) Cortical alveoli ....................................................................... 531 (ii) Mitochondrial cristae ........................................................................ 531 (iii) Structures of cilia, flagella, and associated structures .....................................................532 (a) Grouping and number of cilia and flagela....................................................................532 (b) Surface and subsurface of cilia and flagela ........................................ ...................532 (c) Basal body structure ....................................................................... 533 (d) Type of ciliaryn ecklace .......................................................................533 (e) Type of ciliary and flagelar roots ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Copy 2021 05 11 Scam
    This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from Explore Bristol Research, http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk Author: Scambler, Ross D Title: Exploring the evolutionary relationships amongst eukaryote groups using comparative genomics, with a particular focus on the excavate taxa General rights Access to the thesis is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License. A copy of this may be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode This license sets out your rights and the restrictions that apply to your access to the thesis so it is important you read this before proceeding. Take down policy Some pages of this thesis may have been removed for copyright restrictions prior to having it been deposited in Explore Bristol Research. However, if you have discovered material within the thesis that you consider to be unlawful e.g. breaches of copyright (either yours or that of a third party) or any other law, including but not limited to those relating to patent, trademark, confidentiality, data protection, obscenity, defamation, libel, then please contact [email protected] and include the following information in your message: •Your contact details •Bibliographic details for the item, including a URL •An outline nature of the complaint Your claim will be investigated and, where appropriate, the item in question will be removed from public view as soon as possible. Exploring the evolutionary relationships amongst eukaryote groups using comparative genomics, with a particular focus on the excavate taxa Ross Daniel Scambler Supervisor: Dr. Tom A. Williams A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirements for award of the degree of Master of Science (by research) in the Faculty of Life Sciences, Novem- ber 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Papers-Biology / Medicine/Download/7585
    Eukaryotes: an update Eukaryotic Taxonomy I added 8 taxons: Colponema, Fonticula, Telonema, Katablepharidae, Haplosporidia, Paramyxia, Ellobiopsida, and Hemimastigota, and split Celestina and Heterolobosa, making 51 taxons. I also added 17 characteristics and excluded 6 (because of errors), making 331. The added ones were: 320. posteriorly-directed flagella with fold 321. tripartite mastigonemes 322. myzocytosis 323. nuclear dualism 324. haplosporosomes 325. cell-within-cell division 326. pellicular plates with 2-fold rotationl symmetry 327. metaboly 328. trailing flagellum circumferential 329. ameboid streaming 330. siliceous skeleton 0 - 1+ 2 opaline 331. rpl36 plastid gene 332. flagellar apparatus with 2 concentric microtubular arrays 333. telonemasome-K body 334. ejectisome-R body 335. dodecagonal axonemal microtubular pattern 336. celestite (strontium sulfate) The TNT format for the data set (starts with 0) was kept. PAUP (Swofford, 2018), Wagner, and ACCTRAN were used. There were no topological constraints, and there was no weighting. There were 12 optimal trees, 14.67 mln. rearrangements, 1247 steps, and 278 parsimony-informative characteristics. The score of the best tree or trees was 1122, the CI was .35, and the RI was .45. The new PAUP version is better as it recognizes the largest clade, so Eukaryota shows up, but the percentage of optimal trees it appears in and the resampling values for it are not given; presumably the MPT percentage is 100 and the resampling values are high. In the majority consensus Histonia again appears in all optimal trees, but the probabilty values also continue to be under 50. Cercobiota, Excavata, Nuclearidae-Fonticula, and Pelomyxida- Myxobiota appeared in all optimal trees, but not Cellulosa, Filosa, Chromista, Euchromista, nor Taxopoda-Eulobosa.
    [Show full text]
  • Alveolata) Using Small Subunit Rrna Gene Sequences Suggests They Are the Free-Living Sister Group to Apicomplexans
    J. Elrkutyt. Microhiol., 49(6), 2002 pp. 49G.504 0 2002 by the Society of Prutozoolugists The Phylogeny of Colpodellids (Alveolata) Using Small Subunit rRNA Gene Sequences Suggests They are the Free-living Sister Group to Apicomplexans OLGA N. KUVARDINA,’.hBRIAN S. LEANDER,’,aVLADIMIR V. ALESHIN,h ALEXANDER P. MYL’NIKOV,” PATRICK J. KEELING‘‘and TIMUR G. SIMDYANOVh “Canadian Institute for Advunced Resenrch, Program in Evolutionury Biology, Department of Botany, Universiv of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 124, Canada, and hDepartnzents of Evolutionary Biochemistry and litvertebrate Zoology, Belozersb Institute of Physico-Chemical Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow 119 899, Russian Federation, and ‘Instinrtefor the Biology of Inland Waters, Russian Academy of Sciences, Borok, Yaroslnvskaya oblavt 152742, Russian Federation ABSTRACT. In an attempt to reconstruct early alveolate evolution, we have examined the phylogenetic position of colpodellids by analyzing small subunit rDNA sequences from Colpodella pontica Myl’nikov 2000 and Colpodella sp. (American Type Culture Col- lection 50594). All phylogenetic analyses grouped the colpodellid sequences together with strong support and placed them strongly within the Alveolata. Most analyses showed colpodellids as the sister group to an apicomplexan clade, albeit with weak support. Sequences from two perkinsids, Perkinsus and Parvilucifera, clustered together and consistently branched as the sister group to dino- flagellates as shown previously. These data demonstrate that colpodellids and perkinsids are plesiomorphically similar in morphology and help provide a phylogenetic framework for inferring the combination of character states present in the last common ancestor of dinoflagellates and apicomplexans. We can infer that this ancestor was probably a myzocytotic predator with two heterodynamic flagella, micropores, trichocysts, rhoptries, micronemes, a polar ring, and a coiled open-sided conoid.
    [Show full text]
  • Predatory Colponemids Are the Sister Group to All Other Alveolates
    Manuscript FilebioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.02.06.936658; this version posted February 7, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Running head: Colponemids are early-branching alveolates Predatory colponemids are the sister group to all other alveolates Denis V. Tikhonenkova,b,1*, Jürgen F. H. Strassertc,1,2*, Jan Janouškovecd, Alexander P. Mylnikova,†, Vladimir V. Aleoshine,f, Fabien Burkic,g, Patrick J. Keelingb aPapanin Institute for Biology of Inland Waters, Russian Academy of Sciences, Borok, 152742, Russia bDepartment of Botany, University of British Columbia, 6270 University Boulevard, Vancouver, V6T1Z4, British Columbia, Canada. cDepartment of Organismal Biology, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18D, 75236 Uppsala, Sweden dDepartment of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom eBelozersky Institute for Physicochemical Biology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Leninskye gory, house 1, building 40 Moscow, 119991 Russia fInstitute for Information Transmission Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences, Bolshoy Karetny per. 19, build.1, Moscow 127051 Russian Federation gScience for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18DUppsala, 75236 Sweden 1Shared first authorship, both authors contributed equally 2 Current affiliation: Institute of Biology, Free University of Berlin, Königin-Luise-Straße 1–3, 14195 Berlin, Germany
    [Show full text]