Abstract

BackgroundThe phylogenetic relationships of the lophophorate lineages, ectoprocts, brachiopods and phoronids, within Lophotrochozoa are still controversial. We sequenced an additional mitochondrial genome of the most species-rich lophophorate lineage, the ectoprocts. Although it is known that there are large differences in the nucleotide composition of mitochondrial sequences of different lineages as well as in the amino acid composition of the encoded proteins, this bias is often not considered in phylogenetic analyses. We applied several approaches for reducing compositional bias and saturation in the phylogenetic analyses of the mitochondrial sequences.ResultsThe complete mitochondrial genome (16,089 bp) of Flustra foliacea (Ectoprocta, Gymnolaemata, Cheilostomata) was sequenced. All protein-encoding, rRNA and tRNA genes are transcribed from the same strand. Flustra shares long intergenic sequences with the cheilostomate ectoproct Bugula, which might be a synapomorphy of these taxa. Further synapomorphies might be the loss of the DHU arm of the tRNA L(UUR), the loss of the DHU arm of the tRNA S(UCN) and the unique anticodon sequence GAG of the tRNA L(CUN). The gene order of the mitochondrial genome of Flustra differs strongly from that of the other known ectoprocts. Phylogenetic analyses of mitochondrial nucleotide and amino acid data sets show that the lophophorate lineages are more closely related to trochozoan phyla than to deuterostomes or ecdysozoans confirming the Lophotrochozoa hypothesis. Furthermore, they support the monophyly of Cheilostomata and Ectoprocta. However, the relationships of the lophophorate lineages within Lophotrochozoa differ strongly depending on the data set and the used method. Different approaches for reducing heterogeneity in nucleotide and amino acid data sets and saturation did not result in a more robust resolution of lophotrochozoan relationships.ConclusionThe contradictory and usually weakly supported phylogenetic reconstructions of the relationships among lophotrochozoan phyla based on mitochondrial sequences indicate that these alone do not contain enough information for a robust resolution of the relations of the lophotrochozoan phyla. The mitochondrial gene order is also not useful for inferring their phylogenetic relationships, because it is highly variable in ectoprocts, brachiopods and some other lophotrochozoan phyla. However, our study revealed several rare genomic changes like the evolution of long intergenic sequences and changes in the structure of tRNAs, which may be helpful for reconstructing ectoproct phylogeny.

Highlights

  • The phylogenetic relationships of the lophophorate lineages, ectoprocts, brachiopods and phoronids, within Lophotrochozoa are still controversial

  • All protein-encoding, rRNA and tRNA genes are transcribed from the same strand, as is the case with the protein-encoding and rRNA genes of the other cheilostomate ectoprocts with known mitochondrial genomes, Bugula neritina [38] and Watersipora subtorquata [49]

  • Most of the results concerning the phylogenetic relationships of the lophophorate lineages are in strong contrast to the results of recent phylogenomic analyses [26,27,29,30,31,33,34] and phylogenetic analyses of nuclear rDNA [14,15,16] that support the monophyly of Bryozoa (= Polyzoa) including Ectoprocta and Entoprocta as well as the monophyly of Brachiozoa including Brachiopoda and Phoronida

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The phylogenetic relationships of the lophophorate lineages, ectoprocts, brachiopods and phoronids, within Lophotrochozoa are still controversial. Once considered the sister or paraphyletic stem-group of Deuterostomia based on embryological and morphological characters [1,2,3,4,5], molecular analyses almost unequivocally place them in Lophotrochozoa, a group established to accommodate the lophophorate lineages along with trochozoans, Annelida, Mollusca and relatives [6] These analyses rely on a spectrum of molecular data ranging from rDNA sequences [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16], mitochondrial protein sequences [17,18,19], single nuclear protein-encoding genes [20,21], Hox genes [22,23], multiple nuclear protein-encoding sequences [24,25] and phylogenomic approaches [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. These analyses contradict the monophyly of Bryozoa (= Polyzoa) including Ectoprocta and Entoprocta (and Cycliophora, of which no mitochondrial genome is available so far) as postulated based on morphological arguments by Nielsen [40,41] and found in some recent analyses of phylogenomic data sets [26,29,30,31,32,33,34] and of rDNA data sets [14,15,16], albeit with poor nodal support

Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.