40
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Analysis of complete mitochondrial genomes from extinct and extant rhinoceroses reveals lack of phylogenetic resolution

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The scientific literature contains many examples where DNA sequence analyses have been used to provide definitive answers to phylogenetic problems that traditional (non-DNA based) approaches alone have failed to resolve. One notable example concerns the rhinoceroses, a group for which several contradictory phylogenies were proposed on the basis of morphology, then apparently resolved using mitochondrial DNA fragments.

          Results

          In this study we report the first complete mitochondrial genome sequences of the extinct ice-age woolly rhinoceros ( Coelodonta antiquitatis), and the threatened Javan ( Rhinoceros sondaicus), Sumatran ( Dicerorhinus sumatrensis), and black ( Diceros bicornis) rhinoceroses. In combination with the previously published mitochondrial genomes of the white ( Ceratotherium simum) and Indian ( Rhinoceros unicornis) rhinoceroses, this data set putatively enables reconstruction of the rhinoceros phylogeny. While the six species cluster into three strongly supported sister-pairings: (i) The black/white, (ii) the woolly/Sumatran, and (iii) the Javan/Indian, resolution of the higher-level relationships has no statistical support. The phylogenetic signal from individual genes is highly diffuse, with mixed topological support from different genes. Furthermore, the choice of outgroup (horse vs tapir) has considerable effect on reconstruction of the phylogeny. The lack of resolution is suggestive of a hard polytomy at the base of crown-group Rhinocerotidae, and this is supported by an investigation of the relative branch lengths.

          Conclusion

          Satisfactory resolution of the rhinoceros phylogeny may not be achievable without additional analyses of substantial amounts of nuclear DNA. This study provides a compelling demonstration that, in spite of substantial sequence length, there are significant limitations with single-locus phylogenetics. We expect further examples of this to appear as next-generation, large-scale sequencing of complete mitochondrial genomes becomes commonplace in evolutionary studies.

          "The human factor in classification is nowhere more evident than in dealing with this superfamily (Rhinocerotoidea)." G. G. Simpson (1945)

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees.

          The program MRBAYES performs Bayesian inference of phylogeny using a variant of Markov chain Monte Carlo. MRBAYES, including the source code, documentation, sample data files, and an executable, is available at http://brahms.biology.rochester.edu/software.html.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order in hominoidea.

            A maximum likelihood method for inferring evolutionary trees from DNA sequence data was developed by Felsenstein (1981). In evaluating the extent to which the maximum likelihood tree is a significantly better representation of the true tree, it is important to estimate the variance of the difference between log likelihood of different tree topologies. Bootstrap resampling can be used for this purpose (Hasegawa et al. 1988; Hasegawa and Kishino 1989), but it imposes a great computation burden. To overcome this difficulty, we developed a new method for estimating the variance by expressing it explicitly. The method was applied to DNA sequence data from primates in order to evaluate the maximum likelihood branching order among Hominoidea. It was shown that, although the orangutan is convincingly placed as an outgroup of a human and African apes clade, the branching order among human, chimpanzee, and gorilla cannot be determined confidently from the DNA sequence data presently available when the evolutionary rate constancy is not assumed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Paleontological evidence to date the tree of life.

              The role of fossils in dating the tree of life has been misunderstood. Fossils can provide good "minimum" age estimates for branches in the tree, but "maximum" constraints on those ages are poorer. Current debates about which are the "best" fossil dates for calibration move to consideration of the most appropriate constraints on the ages of tree nodes. Because fossil-based dates are constraints, and because molecular evolution is not perfectly clock-like, analysts should use more rather than fewer dates, but there has to be a balance between many genes and few dates versus many dates and few genes. We provide "hard" minimum and "soft" maximum age constraints for 30 divergences among key genome model organisms; these should contribute to better understanding of the dating of the animal tree of life.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Evol Biol
                BMC Evolutionary Biology
                BioMed Central
                1471-2148
                2009
                11 May 2009
                : 9
                : 95
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Ancient Genetics, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100, Denmark
                [2 ]Centre for Macroevolution and Macroecology, School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
                [3 ]Pennsylvania State University, Center for Comparative Genomics and Bioinformatics, 310 Wartik Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA
                [4 ]Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 9472-3140, USA
                [5 ]Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Sciences, 33 Leninsky Prospect, 119071 Moscow, Russia
                [6 ]Department of Paleontology, Faculty of Geology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Leninskiye Gory, 119992 Moscow, Russia
                [7 ]Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PW, UK
                [8 ]Center for Conservation and Research of Endangered Wildlife (CREW), Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden, 3400 Vine St, Cincinnati, OH 45220, USA
                Article
                1471-2148-9-95
                10.1186/1471-2148-9-95
                2694787
                19432984
                11ec25f4-5b4c-4358-8c76-c8a614a28d2b
                Copyright © 2009 Willerslev et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 3 October 2008
                : 11 May 2009
                Categories
                Research Article

                Evolutionary Biology
                Evolutionary Biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article