CiteULike

Delicious

Connotea

Citation for Study 10084

Citation title: "On the phylogenetic position of Myzostomida: can 77 genes get it wrong?".

This study was previously identified under the legacy study ID S2424 (Status: Published).

Citation

Bleidorn C., Podsiadlowski L., Zhong M., Eeckhaut I., Hartmann S., Halanych K., & Tiedemann R. 2009. On the phylogenetic position of Myzostomida: can 77 genes get it wrong?. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 9(150): 150.

Authors

• Bleidorn C.
• Podsiadlowski L.
• Zhong M.
• Eeckhaut I.
• Hartmann S.
• Halanych K.
• Tiedemann R.

Abstract

Background: Phylogenomic analyses recently became popular to address questions about deep metazoan phylogeny. Ribosomal proteins (RP) dominate many of these analyses or are, in some cases, the only genes included. Despite initial hopes, phylogenomic analyses including tens to hundreds of genes still fail to robustly place many bilaterian taxa. Results: Using the phylogenetic position of myzostomids as an example, we show that phylogenies derived from RP genes and mitochondrial genes produce incongruent results. Whereas the former support a position within a clade of platyzoan taxa, mitochondrial data recovers an annelid affinity, which is strongly supported by the gene order data and is congruent with morphology. Using hypothesis testing, our RP data significantly rejects the annelids affinity, whereas a platyzoan relationship is significantly rejected by the mitochondrial data. Conclusions: We conclude (i) that reliance of a set of markers belonging to a single class of macromolecular complexes might bias the analysis, and (ii) that concatenation of all available data might introduce conflicting signal into phylogenetic analyses. We therefore strongly recommend testing for data incongruence in phylogenomic analyses. Furthermore, judging all available data, we consider the annelid affinity hypothesis more plausible than a possible platyzoan affinity for myzostomids, and suspect long branch attraction is influencing the RP data. However, this hypothesis needs further confirmation by future analyses.

External links

• DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-9-150

About this resource

• Canonical resource URI: http://purl.org/phylo/treebase/phylows/study/TB2:S10084
• Other versions: Nexus NeXML
• Show BibTeX reference

  		@ARTICLE{TreeBASE2Ref18575,
  	 author = {Christoph  Bleidorn and Lars  Podsiadlowski and Min  Zhong and Igor  Eeckhaut and Stefanie  Hartmann and Kenneth M.  Halanych and Ralph  Tiedemann},
  	 title = {On the phylogenetic position of Myzostomida: can 77 genes get it wrong?},
  	 year = {2009},
  	 keywords = {},
  	 doi = {10.1186/1471-2148-9-150},
  	 url = {},
  	 pmid = {},
  	 journal = {BMC Evolutionary Biology},
  	 volume = {9},
  	 number = {150},
  	 pages = {150},
  	 abstract = {Background: Phylogenomic analyses recently became popular to address questions about deep metazoan phylogeny. Ribosomal proteins (RP) dominate many of these analyses or are, in some cases, the only genes included. Despite initial hopes, phylogenomic analyses including tens to hundreds of genes still fail to robustly place many bilaterian taxa. Results: Using the phylogenetic position of myzostomids as an example, we show that phylogenies derived from RP genes and mitochondrial genes produce incongruent results. Whereas the former support a position within a clade of platyzoan taxa, mitochondrial data recovers an annelid affinity, which is strongly supported by the gene order data and is congruent with morphology. Using hypothesis testing, our RP data significantly rejects the annelids affinity, whereas a platyzoan relationship is significantly rejected by the mitochondrial data. Conclusions: We conclude (i) that reliance of a set of markers belonging to a single class of macromolecular complexes might bias the analysis, and (ii) that concatenation of all available data might introduce conflicting signal into phylogenetic analyses. We therefore strongly recommend testing for data incongruence in phylogenomic analyses. Furthermore, judging all available data, we consider the annelid affinity hypothesis more plausible than a possible platyzoan affinity for myzostomids, and suspect long branch attraction is influencing the RP data. However, this hypothesis needs further confirmation by future analyses.}
  }
  		

• Show RIS reference

  		TY  - JOUR
  ID  - 18575
  AU  - Bleidorn,Christoph 
  AU  - Podsiadlowski,Lars 
  AU  - Zhong,Min 
  AU  - Eeckhaut,Igor 
  AU  - Hartmann,Stefanie 
  AU  - Halanych,Kenneth M. 
  AU  - Tiedemann,Ralph 
  T1  - On the phylogenetic position of Myzostomida: can 77 genes get it wrong?
  PY  - 2009
  UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-9-150
  N2  - Background: Phylogenomic analyses recently became popular to address questions about deep metazoan phylogeny. Ribosomal proteins (RP) dominate many of these analyses or are, in some cases, the only genes included. Despite initial hopes, phylogenomic analyses including tens to hundreds of genes still fail to robustly place many bilaterian taxa. Results: Using the phylogenetic position of myzostomids as an example, we show that phylogenies derived from RP genes and mitochondrial genes produce incongruent results. Whereas the former support a position within a clade of platyzoan taxa, mitochondrial data recovers an annelid affinity, which is strongly supported by the gene order data and is congruent with morphology. Using hypothesis testing, our RP data significantly rejects the annelids affinity, whereas a platyzoan relationship is significantly rejected by the mitochondrial data. Conclusions: We conclude (i) that reliance of a set of markers belonging to a single class of macromolecular complexes might bias the analysis, and (ii) that concatenation of all available data might introduce conflicting signal into phylogenetic analyses. We therefore strongly recommend testing for data incongruence in phylogenomic analyses. Furthermore, judging all available data, we consider the annelid affinity hypothesis more plausible than a possible platyzoan affinity for myzostomids, and suspect long branch attraction is influencing the RP data. However, this hypothesis needs further confirmation by future analyses.
  L3  - 10.1186/1471-2148-9-150
  JF  - BMC Evolutionary Biology
  VL  - 9
  IS  - 150
  ER  -