Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Type: Correspondence
Published: 2008-11-21
Page range: 58–60
Abstract views: 123
PDF downloaded: 1

The sponge genetree server—providing a phylogenetic backbone for poriferan evolutionary studies

Courant Research Center Geobiology, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Goldschmidtstr.3, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
Courant Research Center Geobiology, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Goldschmidtstr.3, 37077 Göttingen, Germany Present address: Department of Earth- and Environmental Sciences & GeoBioCenterLMU, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Richard-Wagner-Str. 10, 80333 München, Germany
Courant Research Center Geobiology, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Goldschmidtstr.3, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
Courant Research Center Geobiology, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Goldschmidtstr.3, 37077 Göttingen, Germany Present address: Department of Earth- and Environmental Sciences & GeoBioCenterLMU, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Richard-Wagner-Str. 10, 80333 München, Germany
Porifera sponge genetree server

Abstract

Unravelling the phylogenetic relationships of sponges (Phylum Porifera) is an important as well as challenging task. It helps the understanding of character evolution among early branching metazoans but also aids in bioprospecting for valuable bioactive sponge compounds. However, the phylogenetic relationships among Porifera are largely unsolved, because the simple poriferan bauplan frequently prevents unambiguous taxonomic species assignment and a clear definition of morphological synapomorphies is difficult (see e.g. Boury-Esnault 2006). DNA sequence markers are frequently employed to overcome morphological shortcomings in phylogeny (e.g. Kelly Borges et al. 1991) and taxonomy (e.g. DNA barcoding, see Wörheide & Erpenbeck 2007). However, some DNA markers suffer from insufficient phylogenetic signal (see e.g. Duran et al. 2004 and Wörheide 2006 on CO1 in population studies) and unequal evolutionary rates among taxa (see e.g. Erpenbeck et al. 2004 on 28S in Haplosclerida). Therefore, a careful evaluation and selection of molecular markers for each individual project is required.

References

  1. Adachi, J., Waddell, P.J., Martin, W. & Hasegawa, M. (2000) Plastid genome phylogeny and a model of amino acid substitution for proteins encoded by chloroplast DNA. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 50, 348–358.

    Boury–Esnault, N. (2006) Systematics and evolution of Demospongiae. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 84, 205–224.

    Duran, S., Pascual, M. & Turon, X. (2004) Low levels of genetic variation in mtDNA sequences over the western Mediterranean and Atlantic range of the sponge Crambe crambe (Poecilosclerida). Marine Biology, 144, 31–35.

    Erpenbeck, D., McCormack, G.P., Breeuwer, J.A.J. & van Soest, R.W.M. (2004) Order level differences in the structure of partial LSU across demosponges (Porifera): new insights into an old taxon. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 32, 388–395.

    Galtier, N., Gouy, M. & Gautier, C. (1996) SEAVIEW and PHYLO_WIN: Two graphic tools for sequence alignment and molecular phylogeny. Computer Applications in the Bioscience, 12, 543–548.

    Jordan, G.E. & Piel, W.H. (2008) PhyloWidget: web–based visualizations for the tree of life. Bioinformatics, 24, 1641–1642.

    Kelly Borges, M., Bergquist, P.R. & Bergquist, P.L. (1991) Phylogenetic relationships within the order Hadromerida (Porifera, Demospongiae, Tetractinomorpha) as indicated by ribosomal RNA sequence comparisons. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 19, 117–125.

    Lartillot, N. & Philippe, H. (2004) A Bayesian mixture model for across–site heterogeneities in the amino–acid replacement process. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 21, 1095–1109.

    Ronquist, F. & Huelsenbeck, J.P. (2003) MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics, 19, 1572–1574.

    Schnare, M.N., Damberger, S.H., Gray, M.W. & Gutell, R.R. (1996) Comprehensive comparison of structural characteristics in eukaryotic cytoplasmic large subunit (23 S–like) ribosomal RNA. Journal of Molecular Biology, 256, 701–719.

    Stamatakis, A. (2006) RAxML–VI–HPC: Maximum likelihood–based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics, 22, 2688–2690.

    Tavare, S. (1986) Some probabilistic and statisical problems on the analysis of DNA sequences. Lectures on Mathematics in the Life Sciences, 17, 57–86.

    Tillier, E.R.M. & Collins, R. (1998) High apparent rate of simultaneous compensatory basepair substitutions in ribosomal RNA. Genetics, 148, 1993–2002.

    Voigt, O., Erpenbeck, D. & Wörheide, G. (2008) Molecular evolution of rDNA in early diverging Metazoa: First comparative analysis and phylogenetic application of complete SSU rRNA secondary structures in Porifera. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 8, p. 69.

    Wörheide, G. (2006) Low variation in partial cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) mitochondrial sequences in the coralline demosponge Astrosclera willeyana across the Indo-Pacific. Marine Biology, 148(5), 907–912.

    Wörheide, G. & Erpenbeck, D. (2007) DNA taxonomy of sponges – progress and perspectives. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 87, 1629–1633.

    Yang, Z.H., Goldman, N. & Friday, A. (1994) Comparison of Models for Nucleotide Substitution Used in Maximum–Likelihood Phylogenetic Estimation. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 11, 316–324.