Cited by 365Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMarine Invertebrate Physiology and EcologyProtist diversity and phylogeny

Revisiting metazoan phylogeny with genomic sampling of all phyla

Open access
Laumer, Christopher E., Fernández, Rosa, Lemer, Sarah, Combosch, David, Kocot, Kevin M., Riesgo, Ana, Andrade, Sónia C. S., Sterrer, Wolfgang +2 more·2019·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Proper biological interpretation of a phylogeny can sometimes hinge on the placement of key taxa—or fail when such key taxa are not sampled. In this light, we here present the first attempt to investigate (though not conclusively resolve) animal relationships using genome-scale data from all phyla. Results from the site-heterogeneous CAT + GTR model recapitulate many established major clades, and strongly confirm some recent discoveries, such as a monophyletic Lophophorata, and a sister group relationship between Gnathifera and Chaetognatha, raising continued questions on the nature of the spiralian ancestor. We also explore matrix construction with an eye towards testing specific relationships; this approach uniquely recovers support for Panarthropoda, and shows that Lophotrochozoa (a subclade of Spiralia) can be constructed in strongly conflicting ways using different taxon- and/or orthologue sets. Dayhoff-6 recoding sacrifices information, but can also reveal surprising outcomes, e.g. full support for a clade of Lophophorata and Entoprocta + Cycliophora, a clade of Placozoa + Cnidaria, and raising support for Ctenophora as sister group to the remaining Metazoa, in a manner dependent on the gene and/or taxon sampling of the matrix in question. Future work should test the hypothesis that the few remaining uncertainties in animal phylogeny might reflect violations of the various stationarity assumptions used in contemporary inference methods.

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.2019.0831

Cites

77 of 77 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?

  • Some recent studies have reported Placozoa as sister to Cnidaria (sometimes paired with Ctenophora second) when minimizing compositional heterogeneity.

    “Interestingly, some recent studies have reported Placozoa as sister to Cnidaria (sometimes paired with Ctenophora second) when minimizing compositional heterogeneity5,33, and we have also recovered some support for this (RL2 analysis of WEA15 dataset) (Fig. 3c).”

    From Evidence for sponges as sister to all other animals from partitioned phylogenomics with mixture models and recoding (2021) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Results and discussion (Non-bilaterian matrices, N and N′) report strong support for Placozoa as sister to Cnidaria after Dayhoff-6 recoding and removal of distant outgroups. The paper does not establish the parenthetical claim that Ctenophora was placed second in that analysis; it says the placement of the deepest-splitting animal phylum varied by matrix. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Cnidarians and placozoans are united as sister lineages to the exclusion of bilaterians and sponges based on the mixing of genes from ALG_Ea and ALG_F found on cnidarian chromosomes and placozoan scaffolds, consistent with recent gene trees.

    “Furthermore, we previously showed that cnidarians and placozoans are united as sister lineages to the exclusion of bilaterians and sponges based on the mixing of genes from ALG_Ea and ALG_F found on cnidarian chromosomes and placozoan scaffolds57, consistent with recent gene trees55.”
  • If sponges are monophyletic, then the four fusions-with-mixing that are found in demosponges and parahoxozoans must be shared by all sponges.

    “If sponges are monophyletic (as supported by recent phylogenomic studies8,10,55), then the four fusions-with-mixing that are found in demosponges and parahoxozoans must be shared by all sponges.”
  • The RL2 findings support recent efforts pairing recoding and site-heterogeneous models to resolve difficult, ancient nodes in animal phylogeny, despite the erosion of data relevant to more shallow nodes.

    “The RL2 findings also support recent efforts pairing recoding and site-heterogeneous models to resolve difficult, ancient nodes in animal phylogeny5,9,24,33, despite the erosion of data relevant to more shallow nodes.”

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: 1

  1. Ax P, 1999, Das System der Metazoa II. Ein Lehrbuch der phylogenetischen Systematik

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Laumer, C. E., Fernández, R., Lemer, S., Combosch, D., Kocot, K. M., Riesgo, A., Andrade, S. C. S., Sterrer, W., Sørensen, M. V., & Giribet, G.
Affiliations
  • European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • Natural History Museum (GB)
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • Bermuda Natural History Museum, PO Box FL 145, Flatts, FLBX, Bermuda
  • Natural History Museum of Denmark (DK)
Corresponding author
Laumer, Christopher E.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2019-07-10
Volume
286
Issue
1906
Pages
20190831
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2957892651
Cited by
360
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 1
FWCI
14.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DEB-0732903, DEB-1457539)
  • Faculty of Arts and Sciences (Internal core funding to GG)
  • Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University (Internal core funding to GG)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Marine Invertebrate Physiology and Ecology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protist diversity and phylogeny
Keywords
animal phylogeny, Lophophorata, Gnathifera, chaetognaths, Spiralia, Panarthropoda, Lophotrochozoa, Ctenophora, Entoprocta, Cycliophora, Placozoa, Cnidaria, matrix construction, stationarity assumption, phylogenetic incongruence
MeSH terms
Animals, Classification, Phylogeny, Genomics

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