DOCSLIB.ORG

Lack of Support for Deuterostomia Prompts Reinterpretation of the First Bilateria. Authors and Affiliations Paschalia Kapli1, Pa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lack of Support for Deuterostomia Prompts Reinterpretation of the First Bilateria. Authors and Affiliations Paschalia Kapli1, Pa bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.01.182915; this version posted July 2, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.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 Lack of support for Deuterostomia prompts reinterpretation of the first Bilateria. 2 3 Authors and Affiliations 4 Paschalia Kapli1, Paschalis Natsidis1, Daniel J. Leite1, Maximilian Fursman1,&, Nadia Jeffrie1, 5 Imran A. Rahman2, Hervé Philippe3, Richard R. Copley4, Maximilian J. Telford1* 6 7 1. Centre for Life’s Origins and Evolution, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, 8 University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK 9 10 2. Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PW, UK 11 3. Station d’Ecologie Théorique et Expérimentale, UMR CNRS 5321, Université Paul Sabatier, 12 09200 Moulis, France 13 4. Laboratoire de Biologie du Développement de Villefranche-sur-mer (LBDV), Sorbonne 14 Université, CNRS, 06230 Villefranche-sur-mer, France 15 & Current Address: Geology and Palaeoenvironmental Research Department, Institute of 16 Geosciences, Goethe University Frankfurt - Riedberg Campus, Altenhöferallee 1, 60438 17 Frankfurt am Main 18 19 20 21 22 23 *Correspondence: [email protected]. 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.01.182915; this version posted July 2, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.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. 24 Abstract 25 The bilaterally symmetric animals (Bilateria) are considered to comprise two monophyletic 26 groups, Protostomia and Deuterostomia. Protostomia contains the Ecdysozoa and the 27 Lophotrochozoa; Deuterostomia contains the Chordata and the Xenambulacraria (Hemichordata, 28 Echinodermata and Xenacoelomorpha). Their names refer to a supposed distinct origin of the 29 mouth (stoma) in the two clades, but these groups have been differentiated by other 30 embryological characters including embryonic cleavage patterns and different ways of forming 31 their mesoderm and coeloms. Deuterostome monophyly is not consistently supported by recent 32 studies. Here we compare support for Protostomia and Deuterostomia using five recently 33 published, phylogenomic datasets. Protostomia is always strongly supported, especially by 34 longer and higher quality genes. Support for Deuterostomia is always equivocal and barely 35 higher than support for paraphyletic alternatives. Conditions that can cause tree reconstruction 36 errors - inadequate models, short internal branch, faster evolving genes, and unequal branch 37 lengths - correlate with statistical support for monophyletic deuterostomes. Simulation 38 experiments show that support for Deuterostomia could be explained by systematic error. A 39 survey of molecular characters supposedly diagnostic of deuterostomes shows many are not valid 40 synapomorphies. The branch between bilaterian and deuterostome common ancestors, if real, is 41 very short. This finding fits with growing evidence suggesting the common ancestor of all 42 Bilateria had many deuterostome characteristics. This finding has important implications for our 43 understanding of early animal evolution and for the interpretation of some enigmatic Cambrian 44 fossils such as vetulicolians and banffiids. 45 46 47 48 49 2 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.01.182915; this version posted July 2, 2020. 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. 50 Main 51 52 In the case of a burst of diversification such as is apparent at the base of the Cambrian, 53 reconstructing the evolutionary history of taxa is difficult. Limited time between speciations 54 (short internal branches) lead to the accumulation of a small amount of phylogenetic signal and 55 this signal is easily blurred by the numerous substitutions occurring later (long terminal 56 branches). These problems are exacerbated by heterogeneities in the evolutionary process which 57 can result in model violations that can cause systematic errors1. Very short internal branches also 58 strongly imply minimal evolutionary change meaning that common ancestors of nested clades 59 are expected to have been highly similar. 60 61 The deuterostome branch has weak support. 62 The different topologies relating Chordata, Xenambulacraria and Protostomia seen in recently 63 published animal phylogenies suggest that the support for monophyletic deuterostomes (Fig. 1a) 64 may be low, in contrast with the consistent, strong support for the monophyly of the protostomes. 65 To study this difference, we have gathered five recent, independently generated, phylogenomic 66 datasets covering the diversity of animal phyla (i.e., 2–6). We use these data to investigate the 67 support for different topologies relating the Chordata, Xenambulacraria, Ecdysozoa and 68 Lophotrochozoa. We first asked whether the branches leading to protostomes and deuterostomes 69 were of similar length, under the assumption that both are monophyletic. 70 71 Using a fixed topology taken from the original publications for each dataset (modified when 72 necessary to enforce monophyly of deuterostomes), we optimised branch lengths using the site- 73 homogeneous LG+F+G model. In Figure 1b we see that, while the overall amount of change in 74 branches leading from the bilaterian common ancestor to both protostomes and deuterostomes 75 differs between datasets, in all cases, the branch leading to the protostomes is approximately 76 twice the length of the branch leading to the deuterostomes. This is a conservative measure of the 77 difference, as better fitting models (see later) give longer estimates for the protostome branch 78 and shorter estimates for the deuterostome branch (for the Laumer dataset the protostome branch 79 is estimated as 1.75 times longer than deuterostome under LG and 5.7 times longer under CAT- 3 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.01.182915; this version posted July 2, 2020. 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. 80 LG). This difference between protostome and deuterostome branches is reinforced when we look 81 at the change in log likelihood (∆lnL) between a fully resolved tree compared to trees in which 82 either the protostome or deuterostome branch is collapsed into a polytomy. The ∆lnL observed 83 on collapsing the branch leading to protostomes is considerably greater for all five datasets than 84 the ∆lnL when the deuterostome branch is collapsed (Fig. 1c), showing considerably less signal 85 supporting deuterostomes than protostomes. 86 87 To get a first indication of whether this weaker support for deuterostomes results from conflict 88 between genes or from a lack of signal across genes and across datasets, we repeated these 89 measures of branch lengths and ∆lnL on individual genes in all five datasets (Fig. 1d,e). We find 90 that, for the great majority of genes across all datasets, as for the concatenated datasets, there is a 91 longer branch leading to the protostomes than to deuterostomes (P longer: 3376 (70%); D longer: 92 1402 (29%), Supplementary Data 1) and consistently stronger support (larger ∆lnL) for 93 protostomes than for deuterostomes (∆lnL P larger: 3312 (68.6%); ∆lnL D larger: 1345 (27.8%), 94 Supplementary Data 2). Most genes support monophyletic deuterostomes much less strongly 95 than they support protostomes. 96 97 Minority of genes support deuterostome monophyly. 98 While the difference in branch lengths and likelihood indicate weaker evidence for the 99 monophyly of deuterostomes across different genes relative to the support for protostomes, the 100 measures presented are based on trees in which deuterostomes were constrained to be 101 monophyletic, meaning that we could not show any topological conflict between genes. To 102 measure conflict between genes we considered each gene individually and compared the 103 lnLikelihood of a tree supporting protostome monophyly (“PM”) or deuterostome monophyly 104 (“DM”) with the lnLikelihoods of two alternative topologies for each of these two clades: 105 Protostome Paraphyly “P1”: Lophotrochozoa sister to Deuterostomia; Protostome Paraphyly 106 “P2”: Ecdysozoa sister to Deuterostomia; Deuterostome Paraphyly “D1”: Xenambulacraria sister 107 to Protostomia; Deuterostome Paraphyly “D2”: Chordata sister to Protostomia. (see Fig. 2). 108 We visualised the relative lnLikelihoods for the three topologies for every gene on a triangular 109 plot (Fig. 2). For the protostome trees, most genes have a strong preference for a single topology 4 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.01.182915; this version posted July 2, 2020. 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. 110 (77.31% on average
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Identical Genomic Organization of Two Hemichordate Hox Clusters
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Current Biology 22, 2053–2058, November 6, 2012 ª2012 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.08.052 Report Identical Genomic Organization of Two Hemichordate Hox Clusters Robert Freeman,1,12 Tetsuro Ikuta,2,12 Michael Wu,3 [10] have similar organization to the hemichordate cluster, Ryo Koyanagi,2 Takeshi Kawashima,2 Kunifumi Tagawa,4 but with different posterior genes. These results provide Tom Humphreys,5 Guang-Chen Fang,6 Asao Fujiyama,7 genomic evidence for a well-ordered complex in the deutero- Hidetoshi Saiga,8 Christopher Lowe,9 Kim Worley,10 stome ancestor for the hox1–hox9/10 region, with the Jerry Jenkins,11 Jeremy Schmutz,11 Marc Kirschner,1 number and kind of posterior genes still to be elucidated. Daniel Rokhsar,3 Nori Satoh,2,* and John Gerhart3,* 1 Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, Results and Discussion Boston, MA 02114, USA 2 Marine Genomics Unit, Okinawa Institute of Science and Here we characterize the order, transcriptional orientation, and Technology Graduate University, Onna, clustering of the Hox genes of the genomes of two widely Okinawa 904-0495, Japan studied model hemichordates, Saccoglossus kowalevskii 3 Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of and Ptychodera flava [4, 11, 12], that represent two major California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-3200, USA evolutionary branches of enteropneust hemichordates that 4 Marine Biological Laboratory, Graduate School of Science, diverged an estimated 400 million years ago (MYa) [13]: Hiroshima University, Onomichi, Hiroshima 722-0073, Japan Saccoglossus, of the direct developing harimaniids, and 5 Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Ptychodera, of the indirect developing ptychoderids [14].
    [Show full text]
  • Species Concepts Should Not Conflict with Evolutionary History, but Often Do
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. xxx (2008) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsc Species concepts should not conflict with evolutionary history, but often do Joel D. Velasco Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 5185 White Hall, 600 North Park St., Madison, WI 53719, USA Department of Philosophy, Building 90, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA article info abstract Keywords: Many phylogenetic systematists have criticized the Biological Species Concept (BSC) because it distorts Biological Species Concept evolutionary history. While defences against this particular criticism have been attempted, I argue that Phylogenetic Species Concept these responses are unsuccessful. In addition, I argue that the source of this problem leads to previously Phylogenetic Trees unappreciated, and deeper, fatal objections. These objections to the BSC also straightforwardly apply to Taxonomy other species concepts that are not defined by genealogical history. What is missing from many previous discussions is the fact that the Tree of Life, which represents phylogenetic history, is independent of our choice of species concept. Some species concepts are consistent with species having unique positions on the Tree while others, including the BSC, are not. Since representing history is of primary importance in evolutionary biology, these problems lead to the conclusion that the BSC, along with many other species concepts, are unacceptable. If species are to be taxa used in phylogenetic inferences, we need a history- based species concept. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline of Natural History
    Timeline of natural history This timeline of natural history summarizes significant geological and Life timeline Ice Ages biological events from the formation of the 0 — Primates Quater nary Flowers ←Earliest apes Earth to the arrival of modern humans. P Birds h Mammals – Plants Dinosaurs Times are listed in millions of years, or Karo o a n ← Andean Tetrapoda megaanni (Ma). -50 0 — e Arthropods Molluscs r ←Cambrian explosion o ← Cryoge nian Ediacara biota – z ←Earliest animals o ←Earliest plants i Multicellular -1000 — c Contents life ←Sexual reproduction Dating of the Geologic record – P r The earliest Solar System -1500 — o t Precambrian Supereon – e r Eukaryotes Hadean Eon o -2000 — z o Archean Eon i Huron ian – c Eoarchean Era ←Oxygen crisis Paleoarchean Era -2500 — ←Atmospheric oxygen Mesoarchean Era – Photosynthesis Neoarchean Era Pong ola Proterozoic Eon -3000 — A r Paleoproterozoic Era c – h Siderian Period e a Rhyacian Period -3500 — n ←Earliest oxygen Orosirian Period Single-celled – life Statherian Period -4000 — ←Earliest life Mesoproterozoic Era H Calymmian Period a water – d e Ectasian Period a ←Earliest water Stenian Period -4500 — n ←Earth (−4540) (million years ago) Clickable Neoproterozoic Era ( Tonian Period Cryogenian Period Ediacaran Period Phanerozoic Eon Paleozoic Era Cambrian Period Ordovician Period Silurian Period Devonian Period Carboniferous Period Permian Period Mesozoic Era Triassic Period Jurassic Period Cretaceous Period Cenozoic Era Paleogene Period Neogene Period Quaternary Period Etymology of period names References See also External links Dating of the Geologic record The Geologic record is the strata (layers) of rock in the planet's crust and the science of geology is much concerned with the age and origin of all rocks to determine the history and formation of Earth and to understand the forces that have acted upon it.
    [Show full text]
  • Group Relationship Between Xenacoelomorpha and Ambulacraria
    Manuscript 1 Mitigating anticipated effects of systematic errors supports sister- 2 group relationship between Xenacoelomorpha and Ambulacraria. 3 4 Hervé Philippe1,2&, Albert J. Poustka3,4,&, Marta Chiodin5,6, Katharina J. Hoff7, Christophe 5 Dessimoz8,9,10,11, Bartlomiej Tomiczek8,12, Philipp H. Schiffer8, Steven Müller8, Daryl Domman13,14, 6 Matthias Horn13 , Heiner Kuhl15,16, Bernd Timmermann15, Noriyuki Satoh17, Tomoe Hikosaka- 7 Katayama18 Hiroaki Nakano19, Matthew L. Rowe20, Maurice R. Elphick20, Morgane Thomas-Chollier21, 8 Thomas Hankeln22, Florian Mertes23, Andreas Wallberg24, Richard R. Copley25, Pedro Martinez4,26, 9 Maximilian J. Telford8* 10 11 Affiliations: 12 1 Centre de Théorisation et de Modélisation de la Biodiversité, Station d’Ecologie Théorique et 13 Expérimentale, UMR CNRS 5321, Moulis 09200, France. 14 2 Département de Biochimie, Centre Robert-Cedergren, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, 15 Canada H3C 3J7. 16 3 Max-Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Evolution and Development Group, Ihnestrasse 17 73, Berlin 14195, Germany and Dahlem Centre for Genome Research 18 4 Medical Systems Biology, Environmental and Phylogenomics Group, Max-Planck-Straße 3, 19 12489 Berlin, Germany 20 5 Departament de Genètica, Microbiologia i Estadística, Universitat de Barcelona, 21 Av. Diagonal, 643, Barcelona 08028, Spain 22 6 New York University, School of Medicine, 435 E 30th St, New York, NY 10016 23 7 Bioinformatics Group, Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science, University of 24 Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Str.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of the Annelid Axochord: Insights Into Notochord Evolution Antonella Lauri Et Al
    RESEARCH | REPORTS ORIGIN OF NOTOCHORD by double WMISH (Fig. 2, F to L). Although none of the genes were exclusively expressed in the annelid mesodermal midline, their combined Development of the annelid coexpression was unique to these cells (implying that mesodermal midline in annelids and chor- damesoderm in vertebrates are more similar to axochord: Insights into each other than to any other tissue). It is unlikely that the molecular similarity between annelid notochord evolution and vertebrate mesodermal midline is due to in- dependent co-option of a conserved gene cas- Antonella Lauri,1*† Thibaut Brunet,1* Mette Handberg-Thorsager,1,2‡ sette, because this would require either that this Antje H.L. Fischer,1§ Oleg Simakov,1 Patrick R. H. Steinmetz,1‖ Raju Tomer,1,2¶ cassette was active elsewhere in the body (which Philipp J. Keller,2 Detlev Arendt1,3# is not the case) or that multiple identical inde- pendent events of co-option occurred (which is The origin of chordates has been debated for more than a century, with one key issue being unparsimonious). As in vertebrates, the meso- the emergence of the notochord. In vertebrates, the notochord develops by convergence dermal midline resembles the neuroectodermal and extension of the chordamesoderm, a population of midline cells of unique molecular midline, which expresses foxD, foxA, netrin, slit, identity. We identify a population of mesodermal cells in a developing invertebrate, the marine and noggin (figs. S6 and S7) but not brachyury or annelid Platynereis dumerilii, that converges and extends toward the midline and expresses a twist. However, unlike in chicken (10), the an- notochord-specific combination of genes.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitochondrial Genomes of Two Polydora
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Mitochondrial genomes of two Polydora (Spionidae) species provide further evidence that mitochondrial architecture in the Sedentaria (Annelida) is not conserved Lingtong Ye1*, Tuo Yao1, Jie Lu1, Jingzhe Jiang1 & Changming Bai2 Contrary to the early evidence, which indicated that the mitochondrial architecture in one of the two major annelida clades, Sedentaria, is relatively conserved, a handful of relatively recent studies found evidence that some species exhibit elevated rates of mitochondrial architecture evolution. We sequenced complete mitogenomes belonging to two congeneric shell-boring Spionidae species that cause considerable economic losses in the commercial marine mollusk aquaculture: Polydora brevipalpa and Polydora websteri. The two mitogenomes exhibited very similar architecture. In comparison to other sedentarians, they exhibited some standard features, including all genes encoded on the same strand, uncommon but not unique duplicated trnM gene, as well as a number of unique features. Their comparatively large size (17,673 bp) can be attributed to four non-coding regions larger than 500 bp. We identifed an unusually large (putative) overlap of 14 bases between nad2 and cox1 genes in both species. Importantly, the two species exhibited completely rearranged gene orders in comparison to all other available mitogenomes. Along with Serpulidae and Sabellidae, Polydora is the third identifed sedentarian lineage that exhibits disproportionally elevated rates of mitogenomic architecture rearrangements. Selection analyses indicate that these three lineages also exhibited relaxed purifying selection pressures. Abbreviations NCR Non-coding region PCG Protein-coding gene Metazoan mitochondrial genomes (mitogenomes) usually encode the set of 37 genes, comprising 2 rRNAs, 22 tRNAs, and 13 proteins, encoded on both genomic strands.
    [Show full text]
  • Chordates (Phylum Chordata)
    A short story Leathem Mehaffey, III, Fall 201993 The First Chordates (Phylum Chordata) • Chordates (our phylum) first appeared in the Cambrian, 525MYA. 94 Invertebrates, Chordates and Vertebrates • Invertebrates are all animals not chordates • Generally invertebrates, if they have hearts, have dorsal hearts; if they have a nervous system it is usually ventral. • All vertebrates are chordates, but not all chordates are vertebrates. • Chordates: • Dorsal notochord • Dorsal nerve chord • Ventral heart • Post-anal tail • Vertebrates: Amphioxus: archetypal chordate • Dorsal spinal column (articulated) and skeleton 95 Origin of the Chordates 96 Haikouichthys Myllokunmingia Note the rounded extension to Possibly the oldest the head bearing sensory vertebrate: showed gill organs bars and primitive vertebral elements Early and primitive agnathan vertebrates of the Early Cambrian (530MYA) Pikaia Note: these organisms were less Primitive chordate, than an inch long. similar to Amphioxus 97 The Cambrian/Ordovician Extinction • Somewhere around 488 million years ago something happened to cause a change in the fauna of the earth, heralding the beginning of the Ordovician Period. • Rather than one catastrophe, the late-Cambrian extinction seems to be a series of smaller extinction events. • Historically the change in fauna (mostly trilobites as the index species) was thought to be due to excessive warmth and low oxygen. • But some current findings point to an oxygen spike due perhaps to continental drift into the tropics, driving rapid speciation and consequent replacement of old with new organisms. 98 Welcome to the Ordovician YOU ARE HERE 99 The Ordovician Sea, 488 million years 100 ago The Ordovician Period lasted almost 45 million years, from 489 to 444 MYA.
    [Show full text]
  • Xenacoelomorpha's Significance for Understanding Bilaterian Evolution
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Xenacoelomorpha’s significance for understanding bilaterian evolution Andreas Hejnol and Kevin Pang The Xenacoelomorpha, with its phylogenetic position as sister biology models are the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster and group of the Nephrozoa (Protostomia + Deuterostomia), plays the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, in which basic prin- a key-role in understanding the evolution of bilaterian cell types ciples of developmental processes have been studied in and organ systems. Current studies of the morphological and great detail. It might be because the field of evolutionary developmental diversity of this group allow us to trace the developmental biology — EvoDevo — has its origin in evolution of different organ systems within the group and to developmental biology and not evolutionary biology that reconstruct characters of the most recent common ancestor of species under investigation are often called ‘model spe- Xenacoelomorpha. The disparity of the clade shows that there cies’. Criteria for selected representative species are cannot be a single xenacoelomorph ‘model’ species and primarily the ease of access to collected material and strategic sampling is essential for understanding the evolution their ability to be cultivated in the lab [1]. In some cases, of major traits. With this strategy, fundamental insights into the a supposedly larger number of ancestral characters or a evolution of molecular mechanisms and their role in shaping dominant role in ecosystems have played an additional animal organ systems can be expected in the near future. role in selecting model species. These arguments were Address used to attract sufficient funding for genome sequencing Sars International Centre for Marine Molecular Biology, University of and developmental studies that are cost-intensive inves- Bergen, Thormøhlensgate 55, 5008 Bergen, Norway tigations.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Phylum Poster Porifera
    Phylum PORIFERA CNIDARIA PLATYHELMINTHES ANNELIDA MOLLUSCA ECHINODERMATA ARTHROPODA CHORDATA Hexactinellida -- glass (siliceous) Anthozoa -- corals and sea Turbellaria -- free-living or symbiotic Polychaetes -- segmented Gastopods -- snails and slugs Asteroidea -- starfish Trilobitomorpha -- tribolites (extinct) Urochordata -- tunicates Groups sponges anemones flatworms (Dugusia) bristleworms Bivalves -- clams, scallops, mussels Echinoidea -- sea urchins, sand Chelicerata Cephalochordata -- lancelets (organisms studied in detail in Demospongia -- spongin or Hydrazoa -- hydras, some corals Trematoda -- flukes (parasitic) Oligochaetes -- earthworms (Lumbricus) Cephalopods -- squid, octopus, dollars Arachnida -- spiders, scorpions Mixini -- hagfish siliceous sponges Xiphosura -- horseshoe crabs Bio1AL are underlined) Cubozoa -- box jellyfish, sea wasps Cestoda -- tapeworms (parasitic) Hirudinea -- leeches nautilus Holothuroidea -- sea cucumbers Petromyzontida -- lamprey Mandibulata Calcarea -- calcareous sponges Scyphozoa -- jellyfish, sea nettles Monogenea -- parasitic flatworms Polyplacophora -- chitons Ophiuroidea -- brittle stars Chondrichtyes -- sharks, skates Crustacea -- crustaceans (shrimp, crayfish Scleropongiae -- coralline or Crinoidea -- sea lily, feather stars Actinipterygia -- ray-finned fish tropical reef sponges Hexapoda -- insects (cockroach, fruit fly) Sarcopterygia -- lobed-finned fish Myriapoda Amphibia (frog, newt) Chilopoda -- centipedes Diplopoda -- millipedes Reptilia (snake, turtle) Aves (chicken, hummingbird) Mammalia
    [Show full text]
  • BIOSC 041 Overview of Animal Diversity: Animal Body Plans
    BIOSC 041 Overview of Animal Diversity: Animal Body Plans Reference: Chapter 32 Outline v Definition and major characteristics of animals v Dividing animals into groups based on: § Body symmetry § Tissues § Type of body cavity § Protostome vs deuterostome development v Animal Phylogeny What is an Animal? v Scientists have identified 1.3 million living species of animals v The definition of an animal § Multicellular § Heterotrophic eukaryotes § Possess tissues that develop from embryonic layers v Common characteristics describe the group 1. Common mode of nutrition 2. Cell structure and specialization 3. Reproduction and development 1. Characteristics of Animals: Nutrition v Animals are heterotrophs (“other-eater”) § Obtain nutrition either from other living organisms or from nonliving organic material § Primary consumers (herbivores), secondary consumers (eat herbivores), tertiary consumers (eat carnivores), and/or detritovores (eat detritus- decaying plants/ animals, feces) 2. Characteristics of Animals: Cell Structure and Specialization 1. Animals are multicellular eukaryotes (Note: single-celled eukaryotes with animal-like behavior are grouped as Protists, such as amoeba) 2. Animal cells lack cell walls 3. Bodies are held together by structural proteins like collagen 4. Bodies are organized into tissues, organs, and organ systems § Tissues are groups of cells that have a common structure, and/or function § Nervous tissue and muscle tissue are unique to animals Amoeba: a protist, not a true animal 3. Characteristics of Animals: Reproduction and Development v Most animals reproduce sexually, with the diploid stage dominating the life cycle v Development occurs in specific stages 1. Fertilization to form zygote 2. Zygote undergoes rapid cell division called cleavage 3. Cleavage leads to formation of a multicellular, hollow blastula (ex: whitefish blastula slides from lab, with cells undergoing rapid mitosis) 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbonic Anhydrases: an Ancient Tool in Calcareous Sponge Biomineralization
    fgene-12-624533 March 30, 2021 Time: 13:30 # 1 BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT published: 07 April 2021 doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.624533 Carbonic Anhydrases: An Ancient Tool in Calcareous Sponge Biomineralization Oliver Voigt1*, Benedetta Fradusco1, Carolin Gut1, Charalampos Kevrekidis1, Sergio Vargas1 and Gert Wörheide1,2,3 1 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Palaeontology and Geobiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany, 2 GeoBio-Center, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany, 3 SNSB-Bayerische Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und Geologie, Munich, Germany Enzymes of the a-carbonic anhydrase gene family (CAs) are essential for the deposition of calcium carbonate biominerals. In calcareous sponges (phylum Porifera, class Calcarea), specific CAs are involved in the formation of calcite spicules, a unique trait and synapomorphy of this class. However, detailed studies on the CA repertoire of calcareous sponges exist for only two species of one of the two Calcarea subclasses, the Calcaronea. The CA repertoire of the second subclass, the Calcinea, has not been investigated so far, leaving a considerable gap in our knowledge about this Edited by: Melanie Debiais-Thibaud, gene family in Calcarea. Here, using transcriptomic analysis, phylogenetics, and in situ Université de Montpellier, France hybridization, we study the CA repertoire of four additional species of calcareous Reviewed by: sponges, including three from the previously unsampled subclass Calcinea. Our data Helena Cetkovi´ c,´ Rudjer Boskovic Institute, Croatia indicate that the last common ancestor of Calcarea had four ancestral CAs with defined Ana Riesgo, subcellular localizations and functions (mitochondrial/cytosolic, membrane-bound, and Natural History Museum, secreted non-catalytic). The evolution of membrane-bound and secreted CAs involved United Kingdom gene duplications and losses, whereas mitochondrial/cytosolic and non-catalytic CAs *Correspondence: Oliver Voigt are evidently orthologous genes.
    [Show full text]
  • S I Section 4
    3/31/2011 Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display. Porifera Ecdysozoa Deuterostomia Lophotrochozoa Cnidaria and Ctenophora Cnidaria and Protostomia SSiection 4 Radiata Bilateria Professor Donald McFarlane Parazoa Eumetazoa Lecture 13 Invertebrates: Parazoa, Radiata, and Lophotrochozoa Ancestral colonial choanoflagellate 2 Traditional classification based on Parazoa – Phylum Porifera body plans Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display. Parazoa 4 main morphological and developmental Sponges features used Loosely organized and lack Porifera Ecdysozoa Cnidaria and Ctenophora tissues euterostomia photrochozoa D 1. o Presence or absence of different tissue L Multicellular with several types of types Protostomia cells 2. Type of body symmetry Radiata Bilateria 8,000 species, mostly marine Parazoa Eumetazoa 3. Presence or absence of a true body No apparent symmetry cavity Ancestral colonial Adults sessile, larvae free- choanoflagellate 4. Patterns of embryonic development swimming 3 4 1 3/31/2011 Water drawn through pores (ostia) into spongocoel Flows out through osculum Reproduce Choanocytes line spongocoel Sexually Most hermapppgggphrodites producing eggs and sperm Trap and eat small particles and plankton Gametes are derived from amoebocytes or Mesohyl between choanocytes and choanocytes epithelial cells Asexually Amoebocytes absorb food from choanocytes, Small fragment or bud may detach and form a new digest it, and carry
    [Show full text]