Critical analysis of the topology and rooting of the parabasalian 16S rRNA tree
Language English Country United States Media print
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
15288049
DOI
10.1016/j.ympev.2004.03.005
PII: S1055790304001034
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Bayes Theorem MeSH
- Eukaryota classification cytology genetics MeSH
- Phylogeny * MeSH
- Models, Genetic MeSH
- Evolution, Molecular * MeSH
- Molecular Sequence Data MeSH
- Organelles MeSH
- Likelihood Functions MeSH
- RNA, Ribosomal, 16S genetics MeSH
- Base Sequence MeSH
- Sequence Analysis, DNA MeSH
- Animals MeSH
- Check Tag
- Animals MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Names of Substances
- RNA, Ribosomal, 16S MeSH
The morphological classification of the protozoan phylum Parabasala is not in absolute agreement with the 16S rRNA phylogeny. However, there are strong indications that tree-construction artifacts play a considerable role in the shaping of the 16S rRNA tree. We have performed rigorous analyses designed to minimize such artifacts using the slow-fast and taxa-exclusion methods. The analyses, which included new sequences from the genera Monocercomonas and Hexamastix, in most respects confirmed the previously suggested tree topology and polyphyly of Hypermastigida and Monocercomonadidae but detected one artificial cluster of long branches (Trichonymphidae, Pseudotrichonymphidae, Hexamastix, and Tricercomitus). They also indicated that the rooting of the phylum on the trichonymphid branch is probably wrong and that reliable rooting on the basis of current data is likely impossible. We discuss the tree topology in the view of anagenesis of cytoskeletal and motility organelles and suggest that a robust taxonomic revision requires extensive analysis of other gene sequences.
References provided by Crossref.org