Battistuzzi2009chap07.Pdf
Eubacteria Fabia U. Battistuzzia,b,* and S. Blair Hedgesa shown increasing support for lower-level phylogenetic Department of Biology, 208 Mueller Laboratory, The Pennsylvania clusters (e.g., classes and below), they have also shown the State University, University Park, PA 16802-5301, USA; bCurrent susceptibility of eubacterial phylogeny to biases such as address: Center for Evolutionary Functional Genomics, The Biodesign horizontal gene transfer (HGT) (20, 21). Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5301, USA In recent years, three major approaches have been used *To whom correspondence should be addressed (Fabia.Battistuzzi@ asu.edu) for studying prokaryote phylogeny with data from com- plete genomes: (i) combining gene sequences in a single analysis of multiple genes (e.g., 7, 9, 10), (ii) combining Abstract trees from individual gene analyses into a single “super- tree” (e.g., 22, 23), and (iii) using the presence or absence The ~9400 recognized species of prokaryotes in the of genes (“gene content”) as the raw data to investigate Superkingdom Eubacteria are placed in 25 phyla. Their relationships (e.g., 17, 18). While the results of these dif- relationships have been diffi cult to establish, although ferent approaches have not agreed on many details of some major groups are emerging from genome analyses. relationships, there have been some points of agreement, A molecular timetree, estimated here, indicates that most such as support for the monophyly of all major classes (85%) of the phyla and classes arose in the Archean Eon and some phyla (e.g., Proteobacteria and Firmicutes). (4000−2500 million years ago, Ma) whereas most (95%) of 7 ese A ndings, although criticized by some (e.g., 24, 25), the families arose in the Proterozoic Eon (2500−542 Ma).
[Show full text]