Independent Adaptation to Riverine Habitats Allowed Survival of Ancient Cetacean Lineages
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Corrections BIOPHYSICS. For the article ‘‘Molecular spectroscopy and dynam- CELL BIOLOGY. For the article ‘‘SEM1, a homologue of the split ics of intrinsically fluorescent proteins: Coral red (dsRed) and hand͞split foot malformation candidate gene Dss1, regulates yellow (Citrine)’’ by Ahmed A. Heikal, Samuel T. Hess, Geoffrey exocytosis and pseudohyphal differentiation in yeast’’ by Jussi S. Baird, Roger Y. Tsien, and Watt W. Webb , which appeared Ja¨ntti,Johanna Lahdenranta, Vesa M. Olkkonen, Hans So¨der- in number 22, October 24, 2000, of Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA lund, and Sirkka Kera¨nen,which appeared in number 3, Feb- (97, 11996–12001), the authors note the following corrections. ruary 2, 1999, of Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (96, 909–914), the authors note the following correction. In Results under the 1. Eq. 1 on page 11997, line 16 from the top of the left-hand subheading ‘‘SEM1 Is Not Essential for Growth or Invertase column is written as: Secretion,’’ the sentences ‘‘Disruption or deletion of SEM1 did not cause any obvious growth defects at different temperatures 1 1 1 0.5 ͑͒ ϭ ͩ ͪͩ ͪ on synthetic or rich media containing different carbon sources. G ϩ ͞ ϩ ͞2 N 1 D 1 D We conclude that SEM1 is a single-copy gene nonessential for growth,’’ should read ‘‘Disruption or deletion of SEM1 did not m 1 Ϫ ͞ cause any obvious growth defects at different temperatures on ⅐ ͑ Ϫ ϩ r i͒ ͑ Ϫ ͒ 1 fi fie , [1] synthetic or rich media. However, deletion of SEM1 caused poor 1 fi i ϭ 1 growth on rich media when the sole carbon source was glycerol or galactose.’’ but the equation should read: Correction published online before print: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 10.1073͞ pnas.011532098. Text and publication date are at www.pnas.org͞cgi͞doi͞10.1073͞ 1 1 1 0.5 ͑͒ ϭ ͩ ͪͩ ͪ pnas.011532098 G ϩ ͞ ϩ ͞2 N 1 D 1 D m COLLOQUIUM. For the article ‘‘Hair cell recovery in mitotically 1 Ϫ͞ ⅐ ͑ Ϫ ϩ i͒ blocked cultures of the bullfrog saccule’’ by Richard A. Baird, ͑ Ϫ ͒ 1 fi fie , [1] 1 fi i ϭ 1 Miriam D. Burton, David S. Fashena, and Rebecca A. Naeger, which appeared in number 22, October 24, 2000, of Proc. Natl. 2. On page 11998, lines 25 and 27 from the top of the left-hand Acad. Sci. USA (97, 11722–11729), the authors note the following CORRECTIONS column state: corrections. The author and affiliation lines should read: ϭ ϭ Ϯ ⌽ ϭ Ϯ ϫ Ϫ3 † ‡ At kex 514 nm, f1 0.42 0.06 and 1 1.3 0.3 10 , Richard A. Baird* , Miriam D. Burton*, Anna Lysakowski , suggesting that the quantum yield for the reverse photocon- David S. Fashena*, and Rebecca A. Naeger* version is kex dependent. *Fay and Carl Simons Center for Biology of Hearing and Deafness, Central The sentence should read: Institute for the Deaf, 4560 Clayton Road, St. Louis, MO 63110; and ‡Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, University of Illinois ϭ ϭ Ϯ ⌽ ϭ Ϯ ϫ Ϫ3 At ex 514 nm, f1 0.42 0.06 and 1 1.3 0.3 10 , at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612 suggesting that the quantum yield for the reverse photocon- Additionally, the acknowledgments should have thanked S. D. version is ex dependent. Price for technical assistance. 3. On page 12000, line 19 from the top of the right-hand column, †To whom reprint requests should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]. ‘‘( Ϸ 1 ϫ 10Ϫ3⅐kgmϪ1⅐sϪ1)’’ should read ‘‘( Ϸ 1 ϫ 10Ϫ3 kgmϪ1⅐sϪ1),’’ and EVOLUTION. For the article ‘‘Independent adaptation to riverine 4. In Summary on page 12001, line 11 from the top of the habitats allowed survival of ancient cetacean lineages’’ by Insa right-hand column, ‘‘(on 10Ϫ6⅐10Ϫ11-s time scale)’’ should Cassens, Saverio Vicario, Victor G. Waddell, Heather Bal- read ‘‘(on 10Ϫ6–10Ϫ11 s time scale).’’ chowsky, Daniel Van Belle, Wang Ding, Chen Fan, R. S. Lal Mohan, Paulo C. Simo˜es-Lopes, Ricardo Bastida, Axel Meyer, Michael J. Stanhope, and Michel C. Milinkovitch, which ap- COMMENTARY. For the article ‘‘Avian chemical defense: Toxic peared in number 21, October 10, 2000, of Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. birds not of a feather,’’ by Paul J. Weldon, which appeared in USA (97, 11343–11347), the authors note the following. “We number 24, November 21, 2000, of Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA apologize that acknowledgment to Manuel Garcia Hartmann for (97, 12948–12949), the following corrections should be noted. tissue samples was inadvertently omitted from the published Due to a printer’s error, ‘‘homobatrachotoxinin’’ and ‘‘batra- article.” chotoxinin’’ were incorrectly inserted in place of ‘‘homobatra- Correction published online before print: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 10.1073͞ chotoxin’’ and ‘‘batrachotoxin,’’ respectively. The term ‘‘batra- pnas.011532198. Text and publication date are at www.pnas.org͞cgi͞doi͞10.1073͞ chotoxinin-A’’ was correct in the article. pnas.011532198 PNAS ͉ December 19, 2000 ͉ vol. 97 ͉ no. 26 ͉ 14831 Downloaded by guest on September 27, 2021 Independent adaptation to riverine habitats allowed survival of ancient cetacean lineages Insa Cassens*, Saverio Vicario*, Victor G. Waddell†, Heather Balchowsky†, Daniel Van Belle‡, Wang Ding§, Chen Fan§, R. S. Lal Mohan¶, Paulo C. Simo˜ es-Lopesʈ, Ricardo Bastida**, Axel Meyer††, Michael J. Stanhope†‡‡, and Michel C. Milinkovitch*§§ *Unit of Evolutionary Genetics, and ‡Unit of Bioinformatics, Free University of Brussels, Institute of Molecular Biology and Medicine, B-6041 Gosselies, Belgium; †Biology and Biochemistry, Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, BT9 7BL, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom; §Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430072, China; ¶Conservation of Nature Trust, B͞24, Gandhinagar, Calicut-673 005, Kerala, India; ʈAquatic Mammals Laboratory, Department of Ecology and Zoology, CCB, Federal University of Santa Catarina, P.O. Box 5102, Floriano´ polis, SC, 88040–970, Brazil; **Marine Mammals Laboratory, National University of Mar del Plata, Casilla de Correo 43, 7600 Mar del Plata, Argentina; ††Evolutionsbiologie, Fakulta¨t fu¨ r Biologie, Universita¨ t Konstanz, D-78457 Konstanz, Germany; and ‡‡Bioinformatics, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, 1250 South Collegeville Road, Collegeville, PA, 19426 Edited by David B. Wake, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved August 8, 2000 (received for review May 18, 2000) The four species of ‘‘river dolphins’’ are associated with six sepa- refs. 6–11). However, these diagnosing characters could be rate great river systems on three subcontinents and have been ancestral (1, 12), hence phylogenetically uninformative, or prone grouped for more than a century into a single taxon based on their to convergence (because adaptive to living in turbid waters). similar appearance. However, several morphologists recently ques- Whereas the monophyly of the group was usually not questioned, tioned the monophyly of that group. By using phylogenetic anal- many morphological analyses emphasized the substantial diver- yses of nucleotide sequences from three mitochondrial and two gence among the four species (13, 14), and this eventually led to nuclear genes, we demonstrate with statistical significance that the classification of the four genera in four monotypic families extant river dolphins are not monophyletic and suggest that they (15, 16). Morphological idiosyncrasies as well as the separation are relict species whose adaptation to riverine habitats incidentally of the four species on three subcontinents have created taxo- insured their survival against major environmental changes in the nomic disagreement among morphologists with continuing de- marine ecosystem or the emergence of Delphinidae. bate regarding the reality of a river dolphin clade and the position(s) of river dolphins within the phylogeny of whales. etaceans are ecologically diverse, because their habitats Gray (17) first challenged the monophyly of river dolphins and Crange from coastal to oceanic and from tropical to polar was followed by other authors who included the fransiscana waters. Whereas most of the 83 recognized extant species (1) are within delphinids (18, 19). Only recently, morphologists revisited exclusively marine, several species live sporadically or exclusively Gray’s hypothesis. Heyning (2) recognized a clade including the in freshwater. Some of them (e.g., Beluga, Tucuxi, Irrawaddy boto, fransiscana, and baiji. On the other hand, de Muizon (20, dolphin, and finless porpoise) are well characterized phylo- 21), as well as Messenger and McGuire (22), grouped the boto genetically, i.e., they belong to the superfamily Delphinoidea and fransiscana in a clade closely related to the Delphinoidea, (white whales, true dolphins, and porpoises) (2, 3). On the other and suggested that the baiji is the sister group of this [boto ϩ hand, the taxonomic relationships of the so-called river dolphins ϩ have been in a state of confusion for more than a century. These fransiscana Delphinoidea] clade. include three exclusively riverine species: (i) the blind river Unfortunately, current paleontological data cannot resolve dolphin, or ‘‘susu’’ (Platanista gangetica) living in the Indus, the issue because the fossil record of river dolphins is rather scarce, geographically isolated, and dates back to the Miocene Ganges, and Brahmaputra river systems on the Indian subcon- EVOLUTION tinent; (ii) the Yangtze river dolphin, or ‘‘baiji’’ (Lipotes vexil- and lower Pliocene. Furthermore, different authors disagree lifer), which lives in the lower and middle reaches of the Yangtze both on the ecological (marine or riverine) and taxonomic status river in China, and (iii) the Amazon river dolphin, or ‘‘boto’’ (Inia of potentially key fossil specimens (11, 20, 23, 24), making geoffrensis), which is largely distributed in northern South Amer- alternative hypotheses on how and when river dolphins invaded ica in the Orinoco and Amazon River systems, and the upper Rio riverine habitats controversial (see refs. 25 and 26 for conflicting Madeira drainage.