The DOI matches its Crossref record; 70 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Phylogenetic-Signal Dissection of Nuclear Housekeeping Genes Supports the Paraphyly of Sponges and the Monophyly of Eumetazoa
Open accessAbstract
The relationships at the base of the metazoan tree have been difficult to robustly resolve, and there are several different hypotheses regarding the interrelationships among sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, placozoans, and bilaterians, with each hypothesis having different implications for the body plan of the last common ancestor of animals and the paleoecology of the late Precambrian. We have sequenced seven nuclear housekeeping genes from 17 new sponges, bringing the total to 29 species analyzed, including multiple representatives of the Demospongiae, Calcarea, Hexactinellida, and Homoscleromorpha, and analyzed a data set also including six nonmetazoan outgroups and 36 eumetazoans using a variety of phylogenetic methods and evolutionary models. We used leaf stability to identify rogue taxa and investigate their effect on the support of the nodes in our trees, and we identified clades most likely to represent phylogenetic artifacts through the comparison of trees derived using different methods (and models) and through site-stripping analyses. Further, we investigated compositional heterogeneity and tested whether amino acid composition bias affected our results. Finally, we used Bayes factors to compare our results against previously published phylogenies. All our maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian analyses find sponges to be paraphyletic, with all analyses finding three extant paraphyletic sponge lineages, Demospongiae plus Hexactinellida, Calcarea, and Homoscleromorpha. All but one of our ML and Bayesian analyses support the monophyly of Eumetazoa (here Cnidaria + Bilateria) and a sister group relationship between Placozoa (here Trichoplax adhaerens) and Eumetazoa. Bayes factors invariably provide decisive support in favor of poriferan paraphyly when compared against either a sister group relationship between Porifera and Cnidaria or with a monophyletic Porifera with respect to a monophyletic Eumetazoa. Although we were able to recover sponge monophyly using our data set, this was only possible under unrealistic evolutionary models, if poorly performing phylogenetic methods were used, or in situations where the potential for the generation of tree reconstruction artifacts was artificially exacerbated. Everything considered, our data set does not provide any support for a monophyletic Diploblastica (here Placozoa + Cnidaria + Porifera) and suggests that a monophyletic Porifera may be better seen as a phylogenetic artifact.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Similarly, and more pertinent to the root of the animal phylogeny, some past studies have recovered support for sponge paraphyly at the base of the animal tree8,68.”
From Evidence for sponges as sister to all other animals from partitioned phylogenomics with mixture models and recoding (2021) · cites this paper as [68]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models
Ronquist, F., & Huelsenbeck, J. P. (2003) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180 · Cited by 29,194
RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models
Stamatakis, A. (2006) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btl446 · Cited by 15,582
Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 · Cited by 12,558
Cross validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions
Stone, M. (1974) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1974.tb00994.x · Cited by 10,881
Cases in which Parsimony or Compatibility Methods Will be Positively Misleading
Felsenstein, J. (1978) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/27.4.401 · Cited by 3,261
TREE-PUZZLE: maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis using quartets and parallel computing
Schmidt, H. A., Strimmer, K., Vingron, M., & von Haeseler, A. (2002) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/18.3.502 · Cited by 2,512
Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life
Dunn, C. W., Hejnol, A., Matus, D. Q., Pang, K., Browne, W. E., Smith, S. A., Seaver, E., Rouse, G. W., Obst, M., Edgecombe, G. D., et al. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06614 · Cited by 1,921 · cited 9×
“Eumetazoan Monophyly Several recent studies using data sets such as ESTs (Dunn et al. 2008; Schierwater et al. 2009) and complete mitochondrial genomes (Lavrov et al. 2008) have found overall topologies for the most basal part of the metazoan tree that are radically different from the one found in…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialBayesian Phylogenetic Analysis of Combined Data
Nylander, J. A. A., Ronquist, F., Huelsenbeck, J. P., & Nieves‐Aldrey, J. L. (2004) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150490264699 · Cited by 1,845
Sea Anemone Genome Reveals Ancestral Eumetazoan Gene Repertoire and Genomic Organization
Putnam, N. H., Srivastava, M., Hellsten, U., Dirks, B., Chapman, J., Salamov, A., Terry, A., Shapiro, H., Lindquist, E., Kapitonov, V. V., et al. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1139158 · Cited by 1,555
A Bayesian Mixture Model for Across-Site Heterogeneities in the Amino-Acid Replacement Process
Lartillot, N., & Philippe, H. (2004) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msh112 · Cited by 1,516
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 2003, Systematic Biology, 52, 311, 10.1080/10635150390196966 · DOI
- 2008, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 25, 665
- 2009, PLoS biology, 7, 1
- 2009, Evolution & development, 11, 51
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Erwin, D. H., Laflamme, M., Tweedt, S. M., Sperling, E. A., Pisani, D., & Peterson, K. J. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1206375 · Cited by 1,336
Self-citationResolving difficult phylogenetic questions: Why more sequences are not enough
Philippe, H., Brinkmann, H., Lavrov, D. V., Littlewood, D. T. J., Manuel, M., Wörheide, G., & Baurain, D. (2011) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000602 · Cited by 1,129
“It is worth mentioning that the monophyly of Porifera is not unequivocally accepted [28,46]; only the analysis of 30,000 positions with a rich taxon sampling and a complex model of evolution recovers it with significant statistical support [3].”
BackgroundThe Amphimedon queenslandica genome and the evolution of animal complexity
Srivastava, M., Simakov, O., Chapman, J., Fahey, B., Gauthier, M. E. A., Mitros, T., Richards, G. S., Conaco, C., Dacre, M., Hellsten, U., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09201 · Cited by 1,049
Global Diversity of Sponges (Porifera)
van Soest, R. W. M., Boury‐Esnault, N., Vacelet, J., Dohrmann, M., Erpenbeck, D., de Voogd, N. J., Santodomingo, N., Vanhoorne, B., Kelly, M., & Hooper, J. N. A. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035105 · Cited by 672
A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms
Ruggiero, M. A., Gordon, D. P. ., Orrell, T. M., Bailly, N., Bourgoin, T., Brusca, R. C., Cavalier‐Smith, T., Guiry, M. D., & Kirk, P. M. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119248 · Cited by 597
“’More recent studies alternatively support paraphyly [63] or holophyly [58, 64] of sponges.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Sperling, E. A., Peterson, K. J., & Pisani, D.
- Affiliations
- Dartmouth College (US)
- National University of Ireland, Maynooth (IE)
- Venue
- Molecular Biology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-07-13
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2261-2274
- ISSN
- 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-1719
- OpenAlex
- W2113314205
- Semantic Scholar
- 31400635e4a3264203bc633bd9a328f8638b1161
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 70
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 20.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Molecular Biology and Evolution (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) (acceptedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Marine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Protist diversity and phylogeny
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Marine Sponges and Natural Products
- Keywords
- sponge phylogeny, Placozoa, Trichoplax adhaerens, Cnidaria, Demospongiae, Hexactinellida, calcareous sponges, Homoscleromorpha, phylogenetic signal, compositional heterogeneity, body plan evolution
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Bayes Theorem, Cell Nucleus, Models, Genetic, Phylogeny, Porifera, Selection, Genetic, Likelihood Functions, Genes, Essential, Placozoa
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
