Crown Group Oxyphotobacteria Postdate the Rise Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Phylogenetic Rooting Using Minimal Ancestor Deviation
Phylogenetic rooting using minimal ancestor deviation Fernando D. K. Tria1, Giddy Landan1*, Tal Dagan Genomic Microbiology Group, Institute of General Microbiology, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany 1 Equally contributed. * Corresponding author: [email protected] This preprint PDF is the revised manuscript as submitted to Nature Ecology & Evolution on 30-Mar-2017. It includes both the main text and the supplementary information. The final version published in Nature Ecology & Evolution on 19-Jun-2017 (and submitted on 08-May-2017), is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0193 Readers without subscription to NatE&E can see a read-only (no save or print) version here: http://rdcu.be/tywU The main difference between the versions is that the ‘Detailed Algorithm’ section is part of the main text 'Methods' section in the NatE&E final version, but is part of the supplementary information of this preprint version. Be sure to page beyond the references to see it. 1 Abstract Ancestor-descendent relations play a cardinal role in evolutionary theory. Those relatio ns are determined by rooting phylogenetic trees. Existing rooting methods are hampered by evolutionary rate heterogeneity or the unavailability of auxiliary phylogenetic information. We present a novel rooting approach, the minimal ancestor deviation (MAD) method, which embraces heterotachy by utilizing all pairwise topological and metric information in unrooted trees. We demonstrate the method in comparison to existing rooting methods by the analysis of phylogenies from eukaryotes and prokaryotes. MAD correctly recovers the kno wn root of eukaryotes and uncovers evidence for cyanobacteria origins in the ocean. MAD is more robust and co nsistent than existing methods, provides measures of the root inference quality, and is applicable to any tree with branch lengths. -
Contrasting Environmental Preferences of Photosynthetic and Non-Photosynthetic Soil Cyanobacteria Across the Globe
Received: 31 October 2019 | Revised: 8 July 2020 | Accepted: 20 July 2020 DOI: 10.1111/geb.13173 RESEARCH PAPER Contrasting environmental preferences of photosynthetic and non-photosynthetic soil cyanobacteria across the globe Concha Cano-Díaz1 | Fernando T. Maestre2,3 | David J. Eldridge4 | Brajesh K. Singh5,6 | Richard D. Bardgett7 | Noah Fierer8,9 | Manuel Delgado-Baquerizo10 1Departamento de Biología, Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica, Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Móstoles, 28933, Spain 2Instituto Multidisciplinar para el Estudio del Medio “Ramón Margalef”, Universidad de Alicante, Edificio Nuevos Institutos, Carretera de San Vicente del Raspeig s/n, San Vicente del Raspeig, 03690, Spain 3Departamento de Ecología, Universidad de Alicante, Carretera de San Vicente del Raspeig s/n, San Vicente del Raspeig, 03690, Spain 4Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 5Global Centre for Land-Based Innovation, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia 6Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia 7Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK 8Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA 9Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA 10Departamento de Sistemas Físicos, Químicos y Naturales, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla, 41013, Spain Correspondence Concha Cano-Díaz, Departamento de Abstract Biología, Geología, Física y Química Aim: Cyanobacteria have shaped the history of life on Earth and continue to play Inorgánica, Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología, Universidad important roles as carbon and nitrogen fixers in terrestrial ecosystems. -
A Phylogenomic Analysis of Turtles ⇑ Nicholas G
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 83 (2015) 250–257 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev A phylogenomic analysis of turtles ⇑ Nicholas G. Crawford a,b,1, James F. Parham c, ,1, Anna B. Sellas a, Brant C. Faircloth d, Travis C. Glenn e, Theodore J. Papenfuss f, James B. Henderson a, Madison H. Hansen a,g, W. Brian Simison a a Center for Comparative Genomics, California Academy of Sciences, 55 Music Concourse Drive, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA b Department of Genetics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA c John D. Cooper Archaeological and Paleontological Center, Department of Geological Sciences, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92834, USA d Department of Biological Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA e Department of Environmental Health Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA f Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA g Mathematical and Computational Biology Department, Harvey Mudd College, 301 Platt Boulevard, Claremont, CA 9171, USA article info abstract Article history: Molecular analyses of turtle relationships have overturned prevailing morphological hypotheses and Received 11 July 2014 prompted the development of a new taxonomy. Here we provide the first genome-scale analysis of turtle Revised 16 October 2014 phylogeny. We sequenced 2381 ultraconserved element (UCE) loci representing a total of 1,718,154 bp of Accepted 28 October 2014 aligned sequence. Our sampling includes 32 turtle taxa representing all 14 recognized turtle families and Available online 4 November 2014 an additional six outgroups. Maximum likelihood, Bayesian, and species tree methods produce a single resolved phylogeny. -
Phylogenetic Comparative Methods: a User's Guide for Paleontologists
Phylogenetic Comparative Methods: A User’s Guide for Paleontologists Laura C. Soul - Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA David F. Wright - Division of Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024, USA and Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA Abstract. Recent advances in statistical approaches called Phylogenetic Comparative Methods (PCMs) have provided paleontologists with a powerful set of analytical tools for investigating evolutionary tempo and mode in fossil lineages. However, attempts to integrate PCMs with fossil data often present workers with practical challenges or unfamiliar literature. In this paper, we present guides to the theory behind, and application of, PCMs with fossil taxa. Based on an empirical dataset of Paleozoic crinoids, we present example analyses to illustrate common applications of PCMs to fossil data, including investigating patterns of correlated trait evolution, and macroevolutionary models of morphological change. We emphasize the importance of accounting for sources of uncertainty, and discuss how to evaluate model fit and adequacy. Finally, we discuss several promising methods for modelling heterogenous evolutionary dynamics with fossil phylogenies. Integrating phylogeny-based approaches with the fossil record provides a rigorous, quantitative perspective to understanding key patterns in the history of life. 1. Introduction A fundamental prediction of biological evolution is that a species will most commonly share many characteristics with lineages from which it has recently diverged, and fewer characteristics with lineages from which it diverged further in the past. This principle, which results from descent with modification, is one of the most basic in biology (Darwin 1859). -
Table S4. Phylogenetic Distribution of Bacterial and Archaea Genomes in Groups A, B, C, D, and X
Table S4. Phylogenetic distribution of bacterial and archaea genomes in groups A, B, C, D, and X. Group A a: Total number of genomes in the taxon b: Number of group A genomes in the taxon c: Percentage of group A genomes in the taxon a b c cellular organisms 5007 2974 59.4 |__ Bacteria 4769 2935 61.5 | |__ Proteobacteria 1854 1570 84.7 | | |__ Gammaproteobacteria 711 631 88.7 | | | |__ Enterobacterales 112 97 86.6 | | | | |__ Enterobacteriaceae 41 32 78.0 | | | | | |__ unclassified Enterobacteriaceae 13 7 53.8 | | | | |__ Erwiniaceae 30 28 93.3 | | | | | |__ Erwinia 10 10 100.0 | | | | | |__ Buchnera 8 8 100.0 | | | | | | |__ Buchnera aphidicola 8 8 100.0 | | | | | |__ Pantoea 8 8 100.0 | | | | |__ Yersiniaceae 14 14 100.0 | | | | | |__ Serratia 8 8 100.0 | | | | |__ Morganellaceae 13 10 76.9 | | | | |__ Pectobacteriaceae 8 8 100.0 | | | |__ Alteromonadales 94 94 100.0 | | | | |__ Alteromonadaceae 34 34 100.0 | | | | | |__ Marinobacter 12 12 100.0 | | | | |__ Shewanellaceae 17 17 100.0 | | | | | |__ Shewanella 17 17 100.0 | | | | |__ Pseudoalteromonadaceae 16 16 100.0 | | | | | |__ Pseudoalteromonas 15 15 100.0 | | | | |__ Idiomarinaceae 9 9 100.0 | | | | | |__ Idiomarina 9 9 100.0 | | | | |__ Colwelliaceae 6 6 100.0 | | | |__ Pseudomonadales 81 81 100.0 | | | | |__ Moraxellaceae 41 41 100.0 | | | | | |__ Acinetobacter 25 25 100.0 | | | | | |__ Psychrobacter 8 8 100.0 | | | | | |__ Moraxella 6 6 100.0 | | | | |__ Pseudomonadaceae 40 40 100.0 | | | | | |__ Pseudomonas 38 38 100.0 | | | |__ Oceanospirillales 73 72 98.6 | | | | |__ Oceanospirillaceae -
1 Integrative Biology 200 "PRINCIPLES OF
Integrative Biology 200 "PRINCIPLES OF PHYLOGENETICS" Spring 2018 University of California, Berkeley B.D. Mishler March 14, 2018. Classification II: Phylogenetic taxonomy including incorporation of fossils; PhyloCode I. Phylogenetic Taxonomy - the argument for rank-free classification A number of recent calls have been made for the reformation of the Linnaean hierarchy (e.g., De Queiroz & Gauthier, 1992). These authors have emphasized that the existing system is based in a non-evolutionary world-view; the roots of the Linnaean hierarchy are in a specially- created world-view. Perhaps the idea of fixed, comparable ranks made some sense under that view, but under an evolutionary world view they don't make sense. There are several problems with the current nomenclatorial system: 1. The current system, with its single type for a name, cannot be used to precisely name a clade. E.g., you may name a family based on a certain type specimen, and even if you were clear about what node you meant to name in your original publication, the exact phylogenetic application of your name would not be clear subsequently, after new clades are added. 2. There are not nearly enough ranks to name the thousands of levels of monophyletic groups in the tree of life. Therefore people are increasingly using informal rank-free names for higher- level nodes, but without any clear, formal specification of what clade is meant. 3. Most aspects of the current code, including priority, revolve around the ranks, which leads to instability of usage. For example, when a change in relationships is discovered, several names often need to be changed to adjust, including those of groups whose circumscription has not changed. -
Within-Arctic Horizontal Gene Transfer As a Driver of Convergent Evolution in Distantly Related 1 Microalgae 2 Richard G. Do
bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.31.454568; this version posted August 2, 2021. 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. 1 Within-Arctic horizontal gene transfer as a driver of convergent evolution in distantly related 2 microalgae 3 Richard G. Dorrell*+1,2, Alan Kuo3*, Zoltan Füssy4, Elisabeth Richardson5,6, Asaf Salamov3, Nikola 4 Zarevski,1,2,7 Nastasia J. Freyria8, Federico M. Ibarbalz1,2,9, Jerry Jenkins3,10, Juan Jose Pierella 5 Karlusich1,2, Andrei Stecca Steindorff3, Robyn E. Edgar8, Lori Handley10, Kathleen Lail3, Anna Lipzen3, 6 Vincent Lombard11, John McFarlane5, Charlotte Nef1,2, Anna M.G. Novák Vanclová1,2, Yi Peng3, Chris 7 Plott10, Marianne Potvin8, Fabio Rocha Jimenez Vieira1,2, Kerrie Barry3, Joel B. Dacks5, Colomban de 8 Vargas2,12, Bernard Henrissat11,13, Eric Pelletier2,14, Jeremy Schmutz3,10, Patrick Wincker2,14, Chris 9 Bowler1,2, Igor V. Grigoriev3,15, and Connie Lovejoy+8 10 11 1 Institut de Biologie de l'ENS (IBENS), Département de Biologie, École Normale Supérieure, CNRS, 12 INSERM, Université PSL, 75005 Paris, France 13 2CNRS Research Federation for the study of Global Ocean Systems Ecology and Evolution, 14 FR2022/Tara Oceans GOSEE, 3 rue Michel-Ange, 75016 Paris, France 15 3 US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 16 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, -
Constructing a Phylogenetic Tree (Cladogram) K.L
Constructing a Phylogenetic Tree (Cladogram) K.L. Wennstrom, Shoreline Community College Biologists use phylogenetic trees to express the evolutionary relationships among groups of organisms. Such trees are constructed by comparing the anatomical structures, embryology, and genetic sequences of different species. Species that are more similar to one another are interpreted as being more closely related to one another. Before you continue, you should carefully read BioSkills 2, “Reading a Phylogenetic Tree” in your textbook. The BioSkills units can be found at the back of the book. BioSkills 2 begins on page B-3. Steps in creating a phylogenetic tree 1. Obtain a list of characters for the species you are interested in comparing. 2. Construct a character table or Venn diagram that illustrates which characters the groups have in common. a. In a character table, the columns represent characters, beginning with the most common and ending with the least common. The rows represent organisms, beginning with the organism with the fewest derived characters and ending with the organism with the most derived characters. Place an X in the boxes in the table to represent which characters are present in each organism. b. In a Venn diagram, the circles represent the characters, and the contents of each circle represent the organisms that have those characters. Organism Characters Rose Leaves, flowers, thorns Grass Leaves Daisy Leaves, flowers Character Table Venn Diagram leaves thorns flowers Grass X Daisy X X Rose X X X 3. Using the information in your character table or Venn diagram, construct a cladogram that represents the relationship of the organisms through evolutionary time. -
Crown Clades in Vertebrate Nomenclature
2008 POINTS OF VIEW 173 Wiens, J. J. 2001. Character analysis in morphological phylogenetics: Wilkins, A. S. 2002. The evolution of developmental pathways. Sinauer Problems and solutions. Syst. Biol. 50:689–699. Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. Wiens, J. J., and R. E. Etheridge. 2003. Phylogenetic relationships of Wright, S. 1934a. An analysis of variability in the number of digits in hoplocercid lizards: Coding and combining meristic, morphometric, an inbred strain of guinea pigs. Genetics 19:506–536. and polymorphic data using step matrices. Herpetologica 59:375– Wright, S. 1934b. The results of crosses between inbred strains 398. of guinea pigs differing in number of digits. Genetics 19:537– Wiens, J. J., and M. R. Servedio. 1997. Accuracy of phylogenetic analysis 551. including and excluding polymorphic characters. Syst. Biol. 46:332– 345. Wiens, J. J., and M. R. Servedio. 1998. Phylogenetic analysis and in- First submitted 28 June 2007; reviews returned 10 September 2007; traspecific variation: Performance of parsimony, likelihood, and dis- final acceptance 18 October 2007 tance methods. Syst. Biol. 47:228–253. Associate Editor: Norman MacLeod Syst. Biol. 57(1):173–181, 2008 Copyright c Society of Systematic Biologists ISSN: 1063-5157 print / 1076-836X online DOI: 10.1080/10635150801910469 Crown Clades in Vertebrate Nomenclature: Correcting the Definition of Crocodylia JEREMY E. MARTIN1 AND MICHAEL J. BENTON2 1UniversiteL´ yon 1, UMR 5125 PEPS CNRS, 2, rue Dubois 69622 Villeurbanne, France; E-mail: [email protected] 2Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS9 1RJ, UK; E-mail: [email protected] Downloaded By: [Martin, Jeremy E.] At: 19:32 25 February 2008 Acrown group is defined as the most recent common Dyke, 2002; Forey, 2002; Monsch, 2005; Rieppel, 2006) ancestor of at least two extant groups and all its descen- but rather expresses dissatisfaction with the increasingly dants (Gauthier, 1986). -
Phylocode: a Phylogenetic Code of Biological Nomenclature
PhyloCode: A Phylogenetic Code of Biological Nomenclature Philip D. Cantino and Kevin de Queiroz (equal contributors; names listed alphabetically) Advisory Group: William S. Alverson, David A. Baum, Harold N. Bryant, David C. Cannatella, Peter R. Crane, Michael J. Donoghue, Torsten Eriksson*, Jacques Gauthier, Kenneth Halanych, David S. Hibbett, David M. Hillis, Kathleen A. Kron, Michael S. Y. Lee, Alessandro Minelli, Richard G. Olmstead, Fredrik Pleijel*, J. Mark Porter, Heidi E. Robeck, Greg W. Rouse, Timothy Rowe*, Christoffer Schander, Per Sundberg, Mikael Thollesson, and Andre R. Wyss. *Chaired a committee that authored a portion of the current draft. Most recent revision: April 8, 2000 1 Table of Contents Preface Preamble Division I. Principles Division II. Rules Chapter I. Taxa Article 1. The Nature of Taxa Article 2. Clades Article 3. Hierarchy and Rank Chapter II. Publication Article 4. Publication Requirements Article 5. Publication Date Chapter III. Names Section 1. Status Article 6 Section 2. Establishment Article 7. General Requirements Article 8. Registration Chapter IV. Clade Names Article 9. General Requirements for Establishment of Clade Names Article 10. Selection of Clade Names for Establishment Article 11. Specifiers and Qualifying Clauses Chapter V. Selection of Accepted Names Article 12. Precedence Article 13. Homonymy Article 14. Synonymy Article 15. Conservation Chapter VI. Provisions for Hybrids Article 16. Chapter VII. Orthography Article 17. Orthographic Requirements for Establishment Article 18. Subsequent Use and Correction of Established Names Chapter VIII. Authorship of Names Article 19. Chapter IX. Citation of Authors and Registration Numbers Article 20. Chapter X. Governance Article 21. Glossary Table 1. Equivalence of Nomenclatural Terms Appendix A. -
Supplemental Materials Adaptations of Atribacteria to Life In
1 Supplemental Materials 2 Adaptations of Atribacteria to life in methane hydrates: hot traits for cold life 3 Authors: Jennifer B. Glass1*, Piyush Ranjan2*, Cecilia B. Kretz1#, Brook L. Nunn3, Abigail M. Johnson1, James McManus4, Frank J. Stewart2 4 Affiliations: 5 1School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA 6 2School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA 7 3Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 8 4Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, East Boothbay, ME, USA 9 10 #Now at: Division of Bacterial Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Atlanta, Georgia, USA 12 *Correspondence to: [email protected] 13 Dedication: To Katrina Edwards 14 1 15 Table S1. Additional geochemical data for ODP Site 1244 at Hydrate Ridge drilled on IODP Leg 204. 16 See Fig. 1 for methane, sulfate, manganese, iron, and iodide concentrations. 17 Depth reactive reactive Hole (mbsf) %TC %TN %TS %TIC %TOC C:N %CaCO3 Fe (%) Mn (%) C1H2 1.95/2.25 2.07 0.2 0.42 0.17 1.9 11.05 1.46 0.38 0.002 C1H3 3.45/3.75 1.88 0.14 0.55 0.70 1.2 9.85 5.81 0.45 0.004 F2H4 8.6 1.54 0.17 0.39 0.44 1.1 7.55 3.66 0.57 0.005 F3H4 18.1 1.55 0.24 0.64 0.08 1.5 7.14 0.68 0.80 0.004 C3H4 20.69 1.22 0.18 0.22 0.08 1.1 7.40 0.65 1.10 0.004 E10H5 68.55 1.71 0.22 0.42 0.13 1.6 8.38 1.08 0.51 0.003 E19H5 138.89 1.42 0.20 0.07 0.51 0.9 5.32 4.23 1.41 0.012 18 2 19 Table S2. -
Reading Phylogenetic Trees: a Quick Review (Adapted from Evolution.Berkeley.Edu)
Biological Trees Gloria Rendon SC11 Education June, 2011 Biological trees • Biological trees are used for the purpose of classification, i.e. grouping and categorization of organisms by biological type such as genus or species. Types of Biological trees • Taxonomy trees, like the one hosted at NCBI, are hierarchies; thus classification is determined by position or rank within the hierarchy. It goes from kingdom to species. • Phylogenetic trees represent evolutionary relationships, or genealogy, among species. Nowadays, these trees are usually constructed by comparing 16s/18s ribosomal RNA. • Gene trees represent evolutionary relationships of a particular biological molecule (gene or protein product) among species. They may or may not match the species genealogy. Examples: hemoglobin tree, kinase tree, etc. TAXONOMY TREES Exercise 1: Exploring the Species Tree at NCBI •There exist many taxonomies. •In this exercise, we will examine the taxonomy at NCBI. •NCBI has a taxonomy database where each category in the tree (from the root to the species level) has a unique identifier called taxid. •The lineage of a species is the full path you take in that tree from the root to the point where that species is located. •The (NCBI) taxonomy common tree is therefore the tree that results from adding together the full lineages of each species in a particular list of your choice. Exercise 1: Exploring the Species Tree at NCBI • Open a web browser on NCBI’s Taxonomy page http://www.ncbi.nlm.n ih.gov/Taxonomy/ • Click on each one of the names here to look up the taxonomy id (taxid) of each one of the five categories of the taxonomy browser: Archaea, bacteria, Eukaryotes, Viroids and Viruses.