CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 414Developmental Biology and Gene RegulationMarine Invertebrate Physiology and EcologyEvolution and Paleontology Studies

Evolution of the chordate body plan: New insights from phylogenetic analyses of deuterostome phyla

Open access
Cameron, Chris B., Garey, James R., Swalla, Billie J.·2000·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.97.9.4469PMC PMC18258
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The deuterostome phyla include Echinodermata, Hemichordata, and Chordata. Chordata is composed of three subphyla, Vertebrata, Cephalochordata (Branchiostoma), and Urochordata (Tunicata). Careful analysis of a new 18S rDNA data set indicates that deuterostomes are composed of two major clades: chordates and echinoderms + hemichordates. This analysis strongly supports the monophyly of each of the four major deuterostome taxa: Vertebrata + Cephalochordata, Urochordata, Hemichordata, and Echinodermata. Hemichordates include two distinct classes, the enteropneust worms and the colonial pterobranchs. Most previous hypotheses of deuterostome origins have assumed that the morphology of extant colonial pterobranchs resembles the ancestral deuterostome. We present a molecular phylogenetic analysis of hemichordates that challenges this long-held view. We used 18S rRNA to infer evolutionary relationships of the hemichordate classes Pterobranchia and Enteropneusta. Our data show that pterobranchs may be derived within enteropneust worms rather than being a sister clade to the enteropneusts. The nesting of the pterobranchs within the enteropneusts dramatically alters our view of the evolution of the chordate body plan and suggests that the ancestral deuterostome more closely resembled a mobile worm-like enteropneust than a sessile colonial pterobranch.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.97.9.4469

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. [1]Holland P W H, Hacker A M, Williams N A. Philos Trans R Soc London B. 1991;332:185–189. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1991.0048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  2. [2]Turbeville J M, Schulz J R, Raff R A. Mol Biol Evol. 1994;11:648–655. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  3. [3]Wada H, Satoh N. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1994;91:1801–1804. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.5.1801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  4. [4]Halanych K. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1995;4:72–76. doi: 10.1006/mpev.1995.1007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  5. [5]Halanych K. Syst Biol. 1996;45:223–246. [Google Scholar]
  6. [6]Halanych K M, Bacheller J D, Aguinaldo A M, Liva S M, Hillis D M, Lake J A. Science. 1995;267:1641–1643. doi: 10.1126/science.7886451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  7. [7]Mackey L Y, Winnepenninckx B, Backeljau I, De Wachter R, Emschermann P, Garey J R. J Mol Evol. 1996;42:552–559. doi: 10.1007/BF02352285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  8. [8]Halanych K. Biol Bull. 1996;190:1–5. doi: 10.2307/1542669. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  9. [9]Willmer P. Invertebrate Relationships: Patterns in Animal Evolution. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  10. [10]Gee H. Before the Backbone. Views on the Origin of the Vertebrates. London: Chapman & Hall; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  11. [11]Raff R A. The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  12. [12]Gerhart J, Kirschner M. Cells, Embryos and Evolution. Malden, MA: Blackwell Science; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  13. [13]Garstang W. Q J Micr Sci. 1928;72:51–187. [Google Scholar]
  14. [14]Jeffries R P S. The Ancestry of Vertebrates. London: British Museum of Natural History; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  15. [15]Nielsen C. Biol J Linn Soc. 1996;57:385–410. [Google Scholar]
  16. [16]Swalla B J, Cameron C B, Corley L S, Garey J R. Syst Biol. 2000;49:122–134. doi: 10.1080/10635150050207384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  17. [17]Hyman L H. The Invertebrates: Smaller Coelomate Groups. New York: McGraw–Hill; 1959. pp. 72–207. [Google Scholar]
  18. [18]Barrington E J W. The Biology of Hemichordata and Protochordata. London: Oliver & Boyd; 1965. [Google Scholar]
  19. [19]Bullock T H, Horridge G A. Structure and Function in the Nervous Systems of Invertebrates. San Francisco: Freeman; 1965. [Google Scholar]
  20. [20]Cameron C B, Mackie G O. Canada J Zool. 1996;74:15–19. [Google Scholar]
  21. [21]Hadfield M G. Reproduction of Marine Invertebrates. New York: Academic; 1975. [Google Scholar]
  22. [23]Dautov S Sh, Nezlin L P. Biol Bull. 1992;183:463–475. doi: 10.2307/1542023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  23. [24]Balser E J, Ruppert E E. Acta Zoologica (Stockholm) 1990;71:235–249. [Google Scholar]
  24. [25]Hart M W, Miller R L, Madin L P. Mar Biol (Berlin) 1994;120:521–533. [Google Scholar]
  25. [26]Berrill N J. The Origin of Vertebrates. London: Oxford Univ. Press; 1955. [Google Scholar]
  26. [27]Eernisse D J, Albert J S, Anderson F E. Syst Biol. 1992;41(3):305–330. [Google Scholar]
  27. [28]Bergstrom J. Paleontol Res. 1997;1:1–14. [Google Scholar]
  28. [29]Nübler-Jung K, Arendt D. Curr Biol. 1996;6(4):352–353. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(02)00491-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  29. [30]Ruppert E E, Cameron C B, Frick J E. Invert Biol. 1999;118:202–212. [Google Scholar]
  30. [31]Gerhart J. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97:4445–4448. doi: 10.1073/pnas.97.9.4445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  31. [32]Wada H, Makabe K W, Nakauchi M, Satoh N. Biol Bull. 1992;183:448–455. doi: 10.2307/1542021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  32. [33]Cameron C B. Ph.D. thesis. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: University of Alberta; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  33. [34]Hadfield K A, Swalla B J, Jeffery W R. J Mol Evol. 1995;40:413–427. doi: 10.1007/BF00164028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  34. [35]De Rijk P, De Wachter R. Comput Appl Biosci. 1993;9:735–740. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/9.6.735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  35. [36]Swofford D L. paup. Phylogenetic Analyses Using Parsimony (and Other Methods), Ver. 4. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  36. [37]Kumar S, Tamara K, Nei M. Comput Appl Biosci. 1994;10:189–191. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/10.2.189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  37. [38]Felsenstein J. phylip: Phylogeny Inference Package, Ver. 3.5. Seattle: Univ. of Washington; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  38. [39]Maddison W P, Maddison D R. macclade, Analysis of Phylogeny and Character Evolution, Ver. 3. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer; 1992. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. [40]Rzhetsky A, Kumar S, Nei M. Mol Biol Evol. 1995;12:163–167. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  40. [41]Lake J A. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1995;92:9662–9666. doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.21.9662. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  41. [42]Lake J A. Mol Biol Evol. 1998;15:1224–1231. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  42. [43]Aguinaldo A M A, Turbeville J M, Linford L S, Rivera M C, Garey J R, Raff R A, Lake J A. Nature (London) 1997;387:489–493. doi: 10.1038/387489a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  43. [44]Blaxter M L, DeLey P, Garey J R, Liu L X, Scheldeman P, Vierstraete A, Vanfleteren J R, Mackey L Y, Dorris M, Frisse L M, et al. Nature (London) 1998;392:71–74. doi: 10.1038/32160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  44. [45]Holland P W H. Israel J Zool. 1996;42:S247–S272. [Google Scholar]
  45. [46]Berrill N J. The Tunicata. London: Ray Society; 1950. [Google Scholar]
  46. [47]Van Name W G. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. His. 1945. [Google Scholar]
  47. [48]Bone Q. The Biology of Pelagic Tunicates. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  48. [49]Jeffery W R, Swalla B J. In: Embryology: Constructing the Organism. Gilbert S, editor. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer; 1997. pp. 331–364. [Google Scholar]
  49. [50]Satoh N. Developmental Biology of Ascidians. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  50. [51]Wada H. Mol Biol Evol. 1998;15:1189–1194. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  51. [52]Cohen C S, Saito Y, Weissman I L. Evolution. 1998;52:746–756. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1998.tb03699.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  52. [53]Bromham L D, Degnan B M. Evol Dev. 1999;1:166–171. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.1999.99026.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  53. [54]Strathmann R R, Bonar D. Mar Biol (Berlin) 1976;34:317–324. [Google Scholar]
  54. [55]Dilly P N, Welsch U, Rehkamper G. Acta Zool. 1986;67(3):173–179. [Google Scholar]
  55. [56]Balser E J, Ruppert E E. Acta Zool. 1990;71:235–249. [Google Scholar]
  56. [57]Yasuo H, Satoh N. Dev Growth Differ. 1994;36:9–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-169X.1994.00009.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  57. [58]Smith J. Trends Genet. 1999;15:154–158. doi: 10.1016/s0168-9525(99)01693-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  58. [59]Ogasawara M, Hiroshi W, Heiko P, Satoh N. Development (Cambridge, UK) 1999;126:2539–2550. doi: 10.1242/dev.126.11.2539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  59. [60]Shoguchi E, Satoh N, Maruyama Y K. Mech Dev. 1999;82:185–189. doi: 10.1016/s0925-4773(99)00008-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  60. [61]Peterson K, Cameron R A, Tagawa K, Satoh N, Davidson E H. Development (Cambridge, UK) 1999;126:85–95. doi: 10.1242/dev.126.1.85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  61. [62]Harada Y, Yasuo H, Satoh N. Development (Cambridge, UK) 1995;121:2747–2754. doi: 10.1242/dev.121.9.2747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cameron, C. B., Garey, J. R., & Swalla, B. J.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2000-04-25
Volume
97
Issue
9
Pages
4469-4474
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.97.9.4469
PMC
PMC18258
OpenAlex
W2015196002
Cited by
414
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 17
FWCI
9.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Marine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
hemichordates, pterobranchs, Enteropneusta, Echinodermata, 18S rRNA, monophyly, chordate origin, Cephalochordata, tunicates
MeSH terms
Animals, Chordata, Nonvertebrate, DNA, Ribosomal, Echinodermata, Biological Evolution, Larva, Molecular Sequence Data, Phylogeny, RNA, Ribosomal, 18S, Vertebrates, Evolution, Molecular

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review