DOCSLIB.ORG

Cenancestor, the Last Universal Common Ancestor

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cenancestor, the Last Universal Common Ancestor Evo Edu Outreach (2012) 5:382–388 DOI 10.1007/s12052-012-0444-8 ORIGIN OF LIFE Cenancestor, the Last Universal Common Ancestor Luis Delaye & Arturo Becerra Published online: 2 September 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012 Abstract Darwin suggested that all life on Earth could be One Ancestor “tous pour un, un pour tous” phylogenetically related. Modern biology has confirmed Darwin’s extraordinary insight; the existence of a universal Common ancestry is a central idea in biology; its roots can genetic code is just one of many evidences of our common be traced back to the beginning of evolutionary theory. As ancestry. Based on the three domain phylogeny proposed by proof of this, Charles Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species Woese and Fox in the early 1970s that all living beings can Alllivingbeingshavemuchincommon,intheir be classified on one of three main cellular lineages (Ar- chemical composition, their cellular structure, their chaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya), it is possible to reconstruct laws of growth, and their liability to injurious influen- some of the characteristics of the Last Universal Common ces… Therefore, on the principle of natural selection Ancestor or cenancestor. Comparative genomics of organ- with divergence of character, it does not seem incred- isms from the three domains has shown that the cenancestor ible that, from such low and intermediate form both was not a direct descendant of the prebiotic soup nor a animals and plants may have been developed; and, if primitive cellular entity where the genotype and the pheno- we admit this, we must likewise admit that all the type had an imprecise relationship (i.e., a progenote), rather organic beings which have ever lived on this earth it was an organism similar in complexity to extant cells. Due may have descended from someone primordial form. to the process of horizontal gene transfer and secondary gene losses, several questions regarding the nature of the Present-day biology, including biochemistry, molecular cenancestor remain unsolved. However, attempts to infer its phylogeny, and comparative genomics, has confirmed nature have led to the identification of a set of universally Darwin's extraordinary insight, i.e., that all living beings conserved genes. The research on the nature of the last descent ultimately from a single species. universal common ancestor promises to shed light on fun- The modern research on the nature of the last common damental aspects of living beings. ancestor (LCA) or cenancestor (Fitch and Upper 1987)is obviously a major trend in present biology (Morange 2009, Keywords Last universal common ancestor . Cenancestor . 2011) and began with the first attempt to reconstruct a univer- Progenote . Bacteria . Archaea . Eukarya . Horizontal gene sal phylogenetic tree by using a single molecule common to transfer . Early evolution of life all cells. In the mid-1970s, Woese and Fox (1977)compared the small subunits of ribosomal RNA (16/18S rRNA) sequen- L. Delaye ces from different species, including prokaryotes (cells with- Departamento de Ingeniería Genética, out a nuclear membrane) and eukaryotes (cell with a nuclear Centro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados del Instituto membrane). These comparisons led to the reconstruction of a Politécnico Nacional, trifurcated, unrooted tree in which all known organisms can be Km. 9.6 Libramiento Norte Carretera Irapuato-León, Irapuato, Guanajuato 36821, Mexico grouped in one of three major monophyletic cell lineages; these were named as the domains Eubacteria (now Bacteria), A. Becerra (*) Archaeabacteria (now Archaea), and the nucleo-cytoplasmic Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, component of Eukaryotes (now known simply as Eucarya; Apdo. Postal 70-407, Ciudad Universitaria, México, D.F. 04510, Mexico Fig. 1). As shown, these lineages are derived from a common e-mail: [email protected] ancestor (Woese et al. 1990). Evo Edu Outreach (2012) 5:382–388 383 Fig. 1 Three cellular domains. Nucleo-cytoplasmic Bacteria The universal tree of life as component of Eukaryotes animals suggested by the 16SrRNA proteobacteria firmicutes molecule fungi plants spirochetes cyanobacteria protists Euryarchaeota Crenarchaeota Archaea Information from one single molecular marker does not that the last common ancestor (LCA) was a progenote was necessarily yield a precise reconstruction of evolutionary pro- disputed when the analysis of homologous traits found cesses, but as indicated by many phylogenies constructed among some of its descendants suggested that it was not a from other genes such as those encoding polymerases, ATPase protocell or any other pre-life progenitor system (Lazcano et subunits, elongation factors, and ribosomal proteins. The al. 1992) but an organism similar in complexity to ext\ant identification of the three major lineages is not an artifact prokaryotes. based exclusively on the reductionist extrapolation of infor- In those years, the inventory of such shared traits was mation derived from a single gene (i.e., the 16SrRNA) but a small, but it was surmised that the sketchy picture developed true reflection of a common ancestry of all living forms. This with the limited data bases would be confirmed when there is in accordance with the fact that all organisms share the were completely sequenced cell genomes from the three same genetic code and crucial features of genome replication, primary domains. This has not been the case: the availability gene expression, membrane-associated ATPase-mediated en- of an increasingly large number of completely sequenced ergy production, and basic anabolic reactions. Minor varia- cellular genomes has sparked new debates, rekindling the tions in the previous process can be easily explained as the discussion on the nature of the ancestral entity (Doolittle outcome of divergent processes from an ancestral life form of 2000). This is shown, for instance, in the diversity of names the three major biological domains (Delaye et al. 2001; that have been coined to describe it: progenote (Woese and Becerra et al. 2007). Fox 1977), cenancestor (Fitch and Upper 1987), last univer- Phylogenetic analysis of rRNA sequences is acknowl- sal cellular ancestor (Philippe and Forterre 1999), and last edged as a prime force in systematics and from its very common community (Line 2002), among others. These inception, had a major impact in our understanding of cel- terms are not truly synonymous, and they reflect the current lular evolution. As exposed by the unrooted rRNA trees, no controversies on the nature of the universal ancestor and the single domain predates the other two, and all three derive evolutionary processes that shaped it. from a common ancestor. Recognition of the differences that exist between the transcriptional and translational machin- eries of the Bacteria, Archaea, and Eucarya, which were Reconstructing the Cenancestor assumed to be the result of independent evolutionary refine- ments, led to the conclusion that the primary branches were As mentioned above, all life on Earth uses exactly the same the descendants of a progenote, a hypothetical biological code to translate the information stored in DNA into pro- entity in which phenotype and genotype still had an impre- teins (with a few exceptions that are clearly evolutionary cise, rudimentary linkage relationship (Woese and Fox novelties). How is it possible that organisms as different as 1977). That is a biological entity where the phenotype and oak trees, Escherichia coli bacterium, amoebas, or ourselves genotype are the same, i.e. a much simpler biological entity share the same set of rules to read (translate) DNA? The than any extant cell. From an evolutionary point of view, it answer is common ancestry; much in the same way that is reasonable to assume that at some point in time the sisters and brothers resemble each other, features shared by ancestors of all forms of life must have been less complex all living beings were inherited from common ancestral than even the simpler extant cells. However, the conclusion species that lived millions of years ago. 384 Evo Edu Outreach (2012) 5:382–388 We can use this knowledge to infer some features of the the cenancestor. The precision of our reconstructions of the biology of this universal ancestor, or cenancestor. But in genome (and therefore our inferences about their biology) of order to do such reconstruction, we need an evolutionary the last universal common ancestor depends on the relative tree describing the phylogenetic relationships among all intensity of previous processes. For instance, the amount of living beings on Earth. As mentioned, such a tree was horizontal gene transfer among prokaryotes is still hotly de- proposed in the early 70's by Woese and Fox when using bated among researchers today (Glansdorff 2000; Gogarten the 16SrRNA molecule to infer the phylogenetic relation- and Townsend 2005; Zhaxybayeva and Doolittle 2011). ships among organisms (Woese and Fox 1977). Before the Despite the methodological difficulties outlined above, work done by Woese and Fox, there were two main classi- different attempts to reconstruct the nature of the last uni- fication systems. In one of them, organisms were classified versal common ancestor have led to the identification of a as Eukaryotes if their genetic material was compartmental- set of highly conserved genes among all cells that very ized by a membrane into a nucleus, or Prokaryotes if this likely have been inherited from the cenancestor (Kyrpides structure is absent (Chatton 1938); in the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetic Tree Reconstruction
    1 4 Molecular Evolution and 3 2 5 Phylogenetic Tree Reconstruction 1 4 2 3 5 Orthology, Paralogy, Inparalogs, Outparalogs Phylogenetic Trees • Nodes: species • Edges: time of independent evolution • Edge length represents evolution time § AKA genetic distance § Not necessarily chronological time Inferring Phylogenetic Trees Trees can be inferred by several criteria: § Morphology of the organisms • Can lead to mistakes § Sequence comparison Example: Mouse: ACAGTGACGCCCCAAACGT Rat: ACAGTGACGCTACAAACGT Baboon: CCTGTGACGTAACAAACGA Chimp: CCTGTGACGTAGCAAACGA Human: CCTGTGACGTAGCAAACGA Distance Between Two Sequences Basic principle: • Distance proportional to degree of independent sequence evolution Given sequences xi, xj, dij = distance between the two sequences One possible definition: i j dij = fraction f of sites u where x [u] ≠ x [u] Better scores are derived by modeling evolution as a continuous change process Molecular Evolution Modeling sequence substitution: Consider what happens at a position for time Δt, • P(t) = vector of probabilities of {A,C,G,T} at time t • µAC = rate of transition from A to C per unit time • µA = µAC + µAG + µAT rate of transition out of A • pA(t+Δt) = pA(t) – pA(t) µA Δt + pC(t) µCA Δt + pG(t) µGA Δt + pT(t) µTA Δt Molecular Evolution In matrix/vector notation, we get P(t+Δt) = P(t) + Q P(t) Δt where Q is the substitution rate matrix Molecular Evolution • This is a differential equation: P’(t) = Q P(t) • Q => prob. distribution over {A,C,G,T} at each position, stationary (equilibrium) frequencies πA, πC, πG,
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Phylogenetic Comparative Methods in R Pável Matos October 17, 2019
    Introduction to phylogenetic comparative methods in R Pável Matos October 17, 2019 This is a tutorial that captures the essence of comparative methods using phylogenies. We will use both simulated and real-world data, along with basic statistics implemented in R packages. The lecture is divided in three sections: 1) Handling and visualizing phylogenies and species traits data in the R environment; 2) Understanding the principles of Brownian motion and its use in evolutionary correlations among species traits; 3) Working with phylogenetically independent contrasts (PIC) and phylogenetic generalized least squares regression (PGLS) using R. Package installations This tutorial was created using R v.3.6.1. You can download the latest R version from the CRAN site. We require two of the most popular phylogenetic R packages: ape and phytools: • ape is an essential R package for handling phylogenetic trees and running analyses of comparative data, including ancestral state reconstruction, diversification rate analyses, and DNA distance computation. • phytools is also handy for manipulating phylogenetic trees and includes other comparative methods and functions not available in ape. We begin this tutorial by installing them: if(!require(ape))install.packages("ape") if(!require(phytools))install.packages("phytools") # the nlme package will allow us to fit Gaussian linear mixed-effects model if(!require(phytools))install.packages("nlme") # the dplyr package will help us to handle data tables if(!require(phytools))install.packages("dplyr") And loading the phylogenetic R packages into our R working space: library(ape) library(phytools) library(nlme) Other important phylogenetic packages include phylobase (manipulating trees and comparative data), geiger (methods for fitting evolutionary models to phylogneies), and caper (phylogenetic comparative analyses).
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Methods for Phylogenetic Analysis
    Computational Methods for Phylogenetic Analysis Student: Mohd Abdul Hai Zahid Supervisors: Dr. R. C. Joshi and Dr. Ankush Mittal Phylogenetics is the study of relationship among species or genes with the combination of molecular biology and mathematics. Most of the present phy- logenetic analysis softwares and algorithms have limitations of low accuracy, restricting assumptions on size of the dataset, high time complexity, complex results which are difficult to interpret and several others which inhibits their widespread use by the researchers. In this work, we address several problems of phylogenetic analysis and propose better methods addressing prominent issues. It is well known that the network representation of the evolutionary rela- tionship provides a better understanding of the evolutionary process and the non-tree like events such as horizontal gene transfer, hybridization, recom- bination and homoplasy. A pattern recognition based sequence alignment algorithm is proposed which not only employs the similarity of SNP sites, as is generally done, but also the dissimilarity for the classification of the nodes into mutation and recombination nodes. Unlike the existing algo- rithms [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], the proposed algorithm [7] conducts a row-based search to detect the recombination nodes. The existing algorithms search the columns for the detection of recombination. The number of columns 1 in a sequence may be far greater than the rows, which results in increased complexity of the previous algorithms. Most of the individual researchers and research teams are concentrating on the evolutionary pathways of specific phylogenetic groups. Many effi- cient phylogenetic reconstruction methods, such as Maximum Parsimony [8] and Maximum Likelihood [9], are available.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Comparative Methods
    Phylogenetic Comparative Methods Luke J. Harmon 2019-3-15 1 Copyright This is book version 1.4, released 15 March 2019. This book is released under a CC-BY-4.0 license. Anyone is free to share and adapt this work with attribution. ISBN-13: 978-1719584463 2 Acknowledgements Thanks to my lab for inspiring me, my family for being my people, and to the students for always keeping us on our toes. Helpful comments on this book came from many sources, including Arne Moo- ers, Brian O’Meara, Mike Whitlock, Matt Pennell, Rosana Zenil-Ferguson, Bob Thacker, Chelsea Specht, Bob Week, Dave Tank, and dozens of others. Thanks to all. Later editions benefited from feedback from many readers, including Liam Rev- ell, Ole Seehausen, Dean Adams and lab, and many others. Thanks! Keep it coming. If you like my publishing model try it yourself. The book barons are rich enough, anyway. Except where otherwise noted, this book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit https: //creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 3 Table of contents Chapter 1 - A Macroevolutionary Research Program Chapter 2 - Fitting Statistical Models to Data Chapter 3 - Introduction to Brownian Motion Chapter 4 - Fitting Brownian Motion Chapter 5 - Multivariate Brownian Motion Chapter 6 - Beyond Brownian Motion Chapter 7 - Models of discrete character evolution Chapter 8 - Fitting models of discrete character evolution Chapter 9 - Beyond the Mk model Chapter 10 - Introduction to birth-death models Chapter 11 - Fitting birth-death models Chapter 12 - Beyond birth-death models Chapter 13 - Characters and diversification rates Chapter 14 - Summary 4 Chapter 1: A Macroevolutionary Research Pro- gram Section 1.1: Introduction Evolution is happening all around us.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny and the Tree of Life 537 That Pines and firs Are Different Enough to Be Placed in Sepa- History
    how do biologists distinguish and categorize the millions of species on Earth? An understanding of evolutionary relationships suggests 26 one way to address these questions: We can decide in which “container” to place a species by comparing its traits with those of potential close relatives. For example, the scaly-foot does not have a fused eyelid, a highly mobile jaw, or a short tail posterior to the anus, three traits shared by all snakes. Phylogeny and These and other characteristics suggest that despite a superfi- cial resemblance, the scaly-foot is not a snake. Furthermore, a the Tree of Life survey of the lizards reveals that the scaly-foot is not alone; the legless condition has evolved independently in several different groups of lizards. Most legless lizards are burrowers or live in grasslands, and like snakes, these species lost their legs over generations as they adapted to their environments. Snakes and lizards are part of the continuum of life ex- tending from the earliest organisms to the great variety of species alive today. In this unit, we will survey this diversity and describe hypotheses regarding how it evolved. As we do so, our emphasis will shift from the process of evolution (the evolutionary mechanisms described in Unit Four) to its pattern (observations of evolution’s products over time). To set the stage for surveying life’s diversity, in this chapter we consider how biologists trace phylogeny, the evolution- ary history of a species or group of species. A phylogeny of lizards and snakes, for example, indicates that both the scaly- foot and snakes evolved from lizards with legs—but that they evolved from different lineages of legged lizards.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Reconstruction and Divergence Time Estimation of Blumea DC
    plants Article Phylogenetic Reconstruction and Divergence Time Estimation of Blumea DC. (Asteraceae: Inuleae) in China Based on nrDNA ITS and cpDNA trnL-F Sequences 1, 2, 2, 1 1 1 Ying-bo Zhang y, Yuan Yuan y, Yu-xin Pang *, Fu-lai Yu , Chao Yuan , Dan Wang and Xuan Hu 1 1 Tropical Crops Genetic Resources Institute/Hainan Provincial Engineering Research Center for Blumea Balsamifera, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Sciences (CATAS), Haikou 571101, China 2 School of Traditional Chinese Medicine Resources, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangzhou 510006, China * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-898-6696-1351 These authors contributed equally to this work. y Received: 21 May 2019; Accepted: 5 July 2019; Published: 8 July 2019 Abstract: The genus Blumea is one of the most economically important genera of Inuleae (Asteraceae) in China. It is particularly diverse in South China, where 30 species are found, more than half of which are used as herbal medicines or in the chemical industry. However, little is known regarding the phylogenetic relationships and molecular evolution of this genus in China. We used nuclear ribosomal DNA (nrDNA) internal transcribed spacer (ITS) and chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) trnL-F sequences to reconstruct the phylogenetic relationship and estimate the divergence time of Blumea in China. The results indicated that the genus Blumea is monophyletic and it could be divided into two clades that differ with respect to the habitat, morphology, chromosome type, and chemical composition of their members. The divergence time of Blumea was estimated based on the two root times of Asteraceae. The results indicated that the root age of Asteraceae of 76–66 Ma may maintain relatively accurate divergence time estimation for Blumea, and Blumea might had diverged around 49.00–18.43 Ma.
    [Show full text]
  • COMPUTING LARGE PHYLOGENIES with STATISTICAL METHODS: PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS *Stamatakis A.P., Ludwig T., Meier H
    COMPUTING LARGE PHYLOGENIES WITH STATISTICAL METHODS: PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS *Stamatakis A.P., Ludwig T., Meier H. Department of Computer Science, Technische Universität München Department of Computer Science, Ruprecht-Karls Universität Heidelberg e-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author Keywords: evolution, phylogenetics, maximum likelihood, large phylogenies Summary The computation of ever larger as well as more accurate phylogenetic trees with the ultimate goal to compute the “tree of life” represents a major challenge in Bioinformatics. Statistical methods for phylogenetic analysis such as maximum likelihood or bayesian inference, have shown to be the most accurate methods for tree reconstruction. Unfortunately, the size of trees which can be computed in reasonable time is limited by the severe computational complexity induced by these statistical methods. However, the field has witnessed great algorithmic advances over the last 3 years which enable inference of large phylogenetic trees containing 500-1000 sequences on a single CPU within a couple of hours using maximum likelihood programs such as RAxML and PHYML. An additional order of magnitude in terms of computable tree sizes can be obtained by parallelizing these new programs. In this paper we briefly present the MPI-based parallel implementation of RAxML (Randomized Axelerated Maximum Likelihood), as a solution to compute large phylogenies. Within this context, we describe how parallel RAxML has been used to compute the –to the best of our knowledge- first maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic tree containing 10.000 taxa on an inexpensive LINUX PC-Cluster. In addition, we address unresolved problems, which arise when computing large phylogenies for real-world sequence data consisting of more than 1.000 organisms with maximum likelihood, based on our experience with RAxML.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Evolutionary Trees
    Evo Edu Outreach (2008) 1:121–137 DOI 10.1007/s12052-008-0035-x ORIGINAL SCIENCE/EVOLUTION REVIEW Understanding Evolutionary Trees T. Ryan Gregory Published online: 12 February 2008 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008 Abstract Charles Darwin sketched his first evolutionary with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead tree in 1837, and trees have remained a central metaphor in and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers evolutionary biology up to the present. Today, phyloge- the surface with its ever-branching and beautiful netics—the science of constructing and evaluating hypoth- ramifications. eses about historical patterns of descent in the form of evolutionary trees—has become pervasive within and Darwin clearly considered this Tree of Life as an increasingly outside evolutionary biology. Fostering skills important organizing principle in understanding the concept in “tree thinking” is therefore a critical component of of “descent with modification” (what we now call evolu- biological education. Conversely, misconceptions about tion), having used a branching diagram of relatedness early evolutionary trees can be very detrimental to one’s in his exploration of the question (Fig. 1) and including a understanding of the patterns and processes that have tree-like diagram as the only illustration in On the Origin of occurred in the history of life. This paper provides a basic Species (Darwin 1859). Indeed, the depiction of historical introduction to evolutionary trees, including some guide- relationships among living groups as a pattern of branching lines for how and how not to read them. Ten of the most predates Darwin; Lamarck (1809), for example, used a common misconceptions about evolutionary trees and their similar type of illustration (see Gould 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Common Ancestry, LUCA, and the Tree of Life: Three Distinct Hypotheses About the Evolution of Life
    Biology & Philosophy (2018) 33:31 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-018-9641-3 Universal common ancestry, LUCA, and the Tree of Life: three distinct hypotheses about the evolution of life Joel Velasco1 Received: 31 March 2018 / Accepted: 23 August 2018 © Springer Nature B.V. 2018 Abstract Common ancestry is a central feature of the theory of evolution, yet it is not clear what “common ancestry” actually means; nor is it clear how it is related to other terms such as “the Tree of Life” and “the last universal common ancestor”. I argue these terms describe three distinct hypotheses ordered in a logical way: that there is a Tree of Life is a claim about the pattern of evolutionary history, that there is a last universal common ancestor is an ontological claim about the existence of an entity of a specific kind, and that there is universal common ancestry is a claim about a causal pattern in the history of life. With these generalizations in mind, I argue that the existence of a Tree of Life entails a last universal common ancestor, which would entail universal common ancestry, but neither of the converse entail- ments hold. This allows us to make sense of the debates surrounding the Tree, as well as our lack of knowledge about the last universal common ancestor, while still maintaining the uncontroversial truth of universal common ancestry. Keywords Tree of Life · Last universal common ancestor · LUCA · Common ancestry Introduction What exactly is meant by “universal common ancestry” and why are we so certain that it is true? There is no agreed upon definition, but we can work toward under- standing what it means by trying to be explicit about what it entails.
    [Show full text]