Cited by 143Marine Invertebrate Physiology and EcologyMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsProtist diversity and phylogeny

Phylogeny and evolution of glass sponges (Porifera, Hexactinellida)

Dohrmann, Martin, Janussen, Dorte, Reitner, Joachim, Collins, Allen G., Wörheide, Gert·2008·Systematic Biology

Abstract

Reconstructing the phylogeny of sponges (Porifera) is one of the remaining challenges to resolve the metazoan Tree of Life and is a prerequisite for understanding early animal evolution. Molecular phylogenetic analyses for two of the three extant classes of the phylum, Demospongiae and Calcarea, are largely incongruent with traditional classifications, most likely because of a paucity of informative morphological characters and high levels of homoplasy. For the third class, Hexactinellida (glass sponges)--predominantly deep-sea inhabitants with unusual morphology and biology--we present the first molecular phylogeny, along with a cladistic analysis of morphological characters. We collected 18S, 28S, and mitochondrial 16S ribosomal DNA sequences of 34 glass sponge species from 27 genera, 9 families, and 3 orders and conducted partitioned Bayesian analyses using RNA secondary structure-specific substitution models (paired-sites models) for stem regions. Bayes factor comparisons of different paired-sites models against each other and conventional (independent-sites) models revealed a significantly better fit of the former but, contrary to previous predictions, the least parameter-rich of the tested paired-sites models provided the best fit to our data. In contrast to Demospongiae and Calcarea, our rDNA phylogeny agrees well with the traditional classification and a previously proposed phylogenetic system, which we ascribe to a more informative morphology in Hexactinellida. We find high support for a close relationship of glass sponges and Demospongiae sensu stricto, though the latter may be paraphyletic with respect to Hexactinellida. Homoscleromorpha appears to be the sister group of Calcarea. Contrary to most previous findings from rDNA, we recover Porifera as monophyletic, although support for this clade is low under paired-sites models.

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 · 10.1080/10635150802161088

Cites

114 of 114 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?

  • Inferred relationships among major sponge lineages (Demospongiae + Hexactinellida sister to Calcarea + Homoscleromorpha) are consistent with morphology and most other molecular analyses that recovered monophyletic sponges.

    “Inferred relationships among major sponge lineages (i.e., Demospongiae + Hexactinellida sister to Calcarea + Homoscleromorpha) were consistent with morphology (27,28) and most other molecular analyses that have recovered monophyletic sponges (datasets 1-27 in Figs. 2 and 3 and Figs.S1-S5) (4, 5, 8, 9, 28-30).”

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

11 of the 125 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dohrmann, M., Janussen, D., Reitner, J., Collins, A. G., & Wörheide, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Göttingen (DE)
  • Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt/M (DE)
  • Georg-August-Universität Göttingen Geowissenschaftliches Zentrum Göttingen (GZG), Abteilung Geobiologie, Goldschmidtstrasse 3, 37077 Göttingen, Germany; E-mail: gert.woerheide@geo.uni-goettingen.de (G.W.)
  • Smithsonian Institution (US)
Corresponding author
Wörheide, Gert
Venue
Systematic Biology
Published
2008-06-01
Volume
57
Issue
3
Pages
388-405
ISSN
  • 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1076-836X
OpenAlex
W2163478051
Cited by
143
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
FWCI
15.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Systematic Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Smithsonian Digital Repository (Smithsonian Institution) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Society of Systematic Biologists
  • Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Marine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Marine Sponges and Natural Products
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protist diversity and phylogeny
Keywords
Hexactinellida, sponge phylogeny, early animal evolution, Demospongiae, calcareous sponges, Homoscleromorpha, rDNA phylogeny, ribosomal RNA secondary structure, deep-sea sponges, homoplasy
MeSH terms
Animals, Base Sequence, Bayes Theorem, DNA, Ribosomal, Biological Evolution, Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, Models, Genetic, Phylogeny, Porifera, Sequence Alignment, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Sequence Analysis, RNA

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