Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 262

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A congruent solution to arthropod phylogeny: phylogenomics, microRNAs and morphology support monophyletic Mandibulata

Open access
Rota-Stabelli, Omar, Campbell, Lahcen, Brinkmann, Henner, Edgecombe, Gregory D., Longhorn, Stuart J., Peterson, Kevin J., Pisani, Davide, Philippe, Hervé, Telford, Maximilian J.·2011·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

While a unique origin of the euarthropods is well established, relationships between the four euarthropod classes—chelicerates, myriapods, crustaceans and hexapods—are less clear. Unsolved questions include the position of myriapods, the monophyletic origin of chelicerates, and the validity of the close relationship of euarthropods to tardigrades and onychophorans. Morphology predicts that myriapods, insects and crustaceans form a monophyletic group, the Mandibulata, which has been contradicted by many molecular studies that support an alternative Myriochelata hypothesis (Myriapoda plus Chelicerata). Because of the conflicting insights from published molecular datasets, evidence from nuclear-coding genes needs corroboration from independent data to define the relationships among major nodes in the euarthropod tree. Here, we address this issue by analysing two independent molecular datasets: a phylogenomic dataset of 198 protein-coding genes including new sequences for myriapods, and novel microRNA complements sampled from all major arthropod lineages. Our phylogenomic analyses strongly support Mandibulata, and show that Myriochelata is a tree-reconstruction artefact caused by saturation and long-branch attraction. The analysis of the microRNA dataset corroborates the Mandibulata, showing that the microRNAs miR-965 and miR-282 are present and expressed in all mandibulate species sampled, but not in the chelicerates. Mandibulata is further supported by the phylogenetic analysis of a comprehensive morphological dataset covering living and fossil arthropods, and including recently proposed, putative apomorphies of Myriochelata. Our phylogenomic analyses also provide strong support for the inclusion of pycnogonids in a monophyletic Chelicerata, a paraphyletic Cycloneuralia, and a common origin of Arthropoda (tardigrades, onychophorans and arthropods), suggesting that previous phylogenies grouping tardigrades and nematodes may also have been subject to tree-reconstruction artefacts.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2010.0590

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. 10.1098/rstb.2007.2243 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.asd.2009.10.002 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/nature07890 · DOI
  4. Nielsen C., 1995, Animal evolution. Interrelationships of the living phyla
  5. 10.1038/376123a0 · DOI
  6. 10.1038/33577 · DOI
  7. Dohle W., 2001, Are the insects terrestrial crustaceans? A discussion of some new facts and arguments and the proposal of a proper name ‘Tetraconata’ for the monophyletic unit Crustacea + Hexapoda, Ann. Soc. Entomol. France, 37, 85
  8. 10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00222-6 · DOI
  9. 10.1186/1741-7007-2-1 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1038/376165a0 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1038/35093090 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1098/rstb.2007.2236 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.ympev.2009.08.014 · DOI
  14. 10.1038/nature08742 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1098/rspb.2009.0950 · DOI
  16. 10.1093/icb/icj020 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.ympev.2008.03.033 · DOI
  18. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026166 · DOI
  19. 10.1093/molbev/msi111 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1016/j.ympev.2006.04.021 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1080/10635150802570791 · DOI
  22. 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2010.00423.x · DOI
  23. 10.1093/molbev/msh112 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2006.00123.x · DOI
  25. 10.1111/j.1525-142x.2008.00302.x · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199549429.003.0015 · DOI
  27. Janssen R.& Budd G. E.. 2010 Gene expression suggests conserved aspects of Hox gene regulation in arthropods and provides additional support for monophyletic Myriapoda. EvoDevo . (doi:10.1186/2041-9139-1-4). · DOI
  28. 10.1007/s00427-006-0085-4 · DOI
  29. 10.1038/35093097 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1038/nature03984 · DOI
  31. 10.1186/1471-2164-7-284 · DOI
  32. 10.1007/s10441-007-9015-8 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1093/gbe/evq030 · DOI
  34. 10.1078/0044-5231-00039 · DOI
  35. Richter S., 2004, Kontroversen in der phylogenetischen systematik der Metazoa., 73
  36. 10.1016/j.palaeo.2007.03.027 · DOI
  37. 10.1038/nature06138 · DOI
  38. Telford M. J., 2003, The place of phylogeny and cladistics in Evo-Devo research, Int. J. Dev. Biol., 47, 479

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rota-Stabelli, O., Campbell, L., Brinkmann, H., Edgecombe, G. D., Longhorn, S. J., Peterson, K. J., Pisani, D., Philippe, H., & Telford, M. J.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2010-08-11
Volume
278
Issue
1703
Pages
298-306
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2096256651
Cited by
262
References
3
FWCI
25.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/data-sharing-mining/ (tdm)

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.