University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Biology Faculty Publications Biology 1-2013 Reconstruction of Family-Level Phylogenetic Relationships within Demospongiae (Porifera) Using Nuclear Encoded Housekeeping Genes Malcolm Hill University of Richmond, [email protected] April L. Hill University of Richmond, [email protected] et. al. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/biology-faculty-publications Part of the Biology Commons, Genetics and Genomics Commons, Population Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Hill, Malcolm S., April L. Hill, Jose Lopez, Kevin J. Peterson, Shirley Pomponi, Maria C. Diaz, Robert W. Thacker, Maja Adamska, Nicole Boury-Esnault, Paco Cárdenas, Andia Chaves-Fonnegra, Elizabeth Danka, Bre-Onna De Laine, Dawn Formica, Eduardo Hajdu, Gisele Lobo-Hajdu, Sarah Klontz, Christine C. Morrow, Jignasa Patel, Bernard Picton, Davide Pisani, Deborah Pohlmann, Niamh E. Redmond, John Reed, Stacy Richey, Ana Riesgo, Ewelina Rubin, Zach Russell, Klaus Rützler, Erik A. Sperling, Michael Di Stefano, James E. Tarver, and Allen G. Collins. "Reconstruction of Family-Level Phylogenetic Relationships within Demospongiae (Porifera) Using Nuclear Encoded Housekeeping Genes." PLoS ONE 8, no. 1 (January 2013): e50437. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0050437. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Biology at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Reconstruction of Family-Level Phylogenetic Relationships within Demospongiae (Porifera) Using Nuclear Encoded Housekeeping Genes Malcolm S. Hill1, April L. Hill1, Jose Lopez2, Kevin J. Peterson3, Shirley Pomponi4, Maria C. Diaz5, Robert W. Thacker6, Maja Adamska7, Nicole Boury-Esnault8, Paco Ca´rdenas9, Andia Chaves-Fonnegra2, Elizabeth Danka1, Bre-Onna De Laine1, Dawn Formica2, Eduardo Hajdu10, Gisele Lobo-Hajdu11, Sarah Klontz12, Christine C. Morrow13, Jignasa Patel2, Bernard Picton14, Davide Pisani15, Deborah Pohlmann1, Niamh E. Redmond12, John Reed4, Stacy Richey1, Ana Riesgo16, Ewelina Rubin2, Zach Russell1, Klaus Ru¨ tzler12, Erik A. Sperling17, Michael di Stefano1, James E. Tarver18, Allen G. Collins12,19* 1 Gottwald Science Center, University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia, United States of America, 2 Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center, Dania Beach, Florida, United States of America, 3 Department of Biological Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States of America, 4 Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Florida Atlantic University, Fort Pierce, Florida, United States of America, 5 Museo Marino de Margarita, Boulevard de Boca Del Rio, Boca del Rio, Nueva Esparta, Venezuela, 6 Department of Biology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America, 7 Sars International Centre for Marine Molecular Biology, Thormøhlensgt, Bergen, Norway, 8 IMBE-UMR7263 CNRS, Universite´ d’Aix-Marseille, Station marine d’Endoume, Marseille, France, 9 Department of Systematic Biology, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 10 Departamento de Invertebrados, Museu Nacional/Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 11 Departamento de Gene´tica, IBRAG, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 12 Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., United States of America, 13 School of Biological Sciences, MBC, Queen’s University, Belfast, United Kingdom, 14 National Museums Northern Ireland, Holywood, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, 15 School of Earth Sciences and School of Biological Sciences, The University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom, 16 Museum of Comparative Zoology, Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America, 17 Harvard University, Department of Earth and Planetary Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America, 18 School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom, 19 National Systematics Laboratory of NOAA’s Fisheries Service, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., United States of America Abstract Background: Demosponges are challenging for phylogenetic systematics because of their plastic and relatively simple morphologies and many deep divergences between major clades. To improve understanding of the phylogenetic relationships within Demospongiae, we sequenced and analyzed seven nuclear housekeeping genes involved in a variety of cellular functions from a diverse group of sponges. Methodology/Principal Findings: We generated data from each of the four sponge classes (i.e., Calcarea, Demospongiae, Hexactinellida, and Homoscleromorpha), but focused on family-level relationships within demosponges. With data for 21 newly sampled families, our Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian-based approaches recovered previously phylogenetically defined taxa: Keratosap, Myxospongiaep, Spongillidap, Haploscleromorphap (the marine haplosclerids) and Democlaviap.We found conflicting results concerning the relationships of Keratosap and Myxospongiaep to the remaining demosponges, but our results strongly supported a clade of Haploscleromorphap+Spongillidap+Democlaviap. In contrast to hypotheses based on mitochondrial genome and ribosomal data, nuclear housekeeping gene data suggested that freshwater sponges (Spongillidap) are sister to Haploscleromorphap rather than part of Democlaviap. Within Keratosap, we found equivocal results as to the monophyly of Dictyoceratida. Within Myxospongiaep, Chondrosida and Verongida were monophyletic. A well- supported clade within Democlaviap, Tetractinellidap, composed of all sampled members of Astrophorina and Spirophorina (including the only lithistid in our analysis), was consistently revealed as the sister group to all other members of Democlaviap. Within Tetractinellidap, we did not recover monophyletic Astrophorina or Spirophorina. Our results also reaffirmed the monophyly of order Poecilosclerida (excluding Desmacellidae and Raspailiidae), and polyphyly of Hadromerida and Halichondrida. Conclusions/Significance: These results, using an independent nuclear gene set, confirmed many hypotheses based on ribosomal and/or mitochondrial genes, and they also identified clades with low statistical support or clades that conflicted with traditional morphological classification. Our results will serve as a basis for future exploration of these outstanding questions using more taxon- and gene-rich datasets. PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 January 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 1 | e50437 Family-Level Phylogeny of Demospongiae Citation: Hill MS, Hill AL, Lopez J, Peterson KJ, Pomponi S, et al. (2013) Reconstruction of Family-Level Phylogenetic Relationships within Demospongiae (Porifera) Using Nuclear Encoded Housekeeping Genes. PLoS ONE 8(1): e50437. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050437 Editor: Senjie Lin, University of Connecticut, United States of America Received May 1, 2012; Accepted October 22, 2012; Published January 23, 2013 This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. Funding: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation’s Assembling the Tree of Life Program (http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ. jsp?pims_id = 5129; DEB awards 0829763, 0829783, 0829791, and 0829986). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. * E-mail: [email protected] Introduction housekeeping genes [18,44]. A broad correspondence in inferences about demosponge phylogeny exists between these three sets of Sponges belong to an ancient metazoan lineage with a fossil data (see discussion below), but both of the latter two sets of data record that stretches back to the late Cryogenian .635 Myr ago have been sampled from a far more limited number of taxa. The [1–3]. Some estimates place their appearance at nearly 800 Myr Porifera Tree of Life project (www.portol.org) employs a variety of ago [4,5]. As a sister group (or groups) to all the other animals in tools to integrate morphological and molecular data and to expand the metazoan tree of life, sponges represent a fulcrum point in the the diversity of sponge taxa used to elucidate all levels of sponge history of animal life lying at the junction between single-celled phylogeny. In this study, we report findings based on a significant ancestors and the rest of Metazoa. Sponges have also been expansion (38 new samples from 38 species representing 30 important ecosystem engineers throughout much of their history, families, including 21 families newly sampled) of the nuclear e.g., as major reef-builders during the Upper Devonian, Upper housekeeping gene dataset first developed for metazoan-wide Permian, and through a major portion of the Jurassic [6,7]. In phylogenetic and molecular dating analyses [45,46] and later modern oceans, poriferans continue to perform important applied by Sperling et