Abstract
Many rDNA molecular phylogenetic studies result in trees that are incongruent to either alternative gene tree reconstructions and/or morphological assumptions. One reason for this outcome might be the application of suboptimal phylogenetic substitution models. While the most commonly implemented models describe the evolution of independently evolving characters fairly well, they do not account for character dependencies such as rRNA strands that form a helix in the ribosome. Such nonindependent sites require the use of models that take into account the coevolution of the complete nucleotide pair (doublet). We analyzed 28S rDNA (LSU) demosponge phylogenies using a “doublet” model for pairing sites (rRNA-helices) and compared our findings with the results of “standard” approaches using Bayes factors. We demonstrate that paired and unpaired sites of the same gene result in different reconstructions and that usage of a doublet model leads to more reliable demosponge trees. We show the influence of more sophisticated models on phylogenetic reconstructions of early-branching metazoans and the phylogenetic relationships of demosponge orders.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams CI, McInerney JO, Kelly M (1999) Indications of relationships between poriferan classes using full-length 18SrRNA gene sequences. Mem Queensland Mus 44:33–43
Addis JS, Peterson KJ (2005) Phylogenetic relationships of freshwater sponges (Porifera, Spongillina) inferred from analyses of 18S rDNA, COI mtDNA, and ITS2 rDNA sequences. Zool Scripta 34:549–557
Altekar G, Dwarkadas S, Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F (2004) Parallel metropolis coupled Markov chain Monte Carlo for Bayesian phylogenetic inference. Bioinformatics 20:407–415
Alvarez B, Crisp MD, Driver F, Hooper JNA, Soest RWM van (2000) Phylogenetic relationships of the family Axinellidae (Porifera: Demospongiae) using morphological and molecular data. Zool Scripta 29:169–198
Borchiellini C, Boury-Esnault N, Vacelet J, Le Parco Y (1998) Phylogenetic analysis of the Hsp70 sequences reveals the monophyly of Metazoa and specific phylogenetic relationships between animals and fungi. Mol Biol Evol 15:647–655
Borchiellini C, Manuel M, Alivon E, Boury-Esnault N, Vacelet J, Le Parco Y (2001) Sponge paraphyly and the origin of Metazoa. J Evol Biol 14:171–179
Borchiellini C, Chombard C, Manuel M, Alivon E, Vacelet J, Boury-Esnault N (2004) Molecular phylogeny of Demospongiae: implications for classification and scenarios of character evolution. Mol Phylogenet Evol 32:823–837
Brandley MC, Schmitz A, Reeder TW (2005) Partitioned bayesian analyses, partition choice, and the phylogenetic relationships of scincid lizards. Syst Biol 54:373–390
Bull JJ, Huelsenbeck JP, Cunningham CW, Swofford DL, Waddell PJ (1993) Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Syst Biol 42:384–397
Cavalier-Smith T, Chao EE, Boury-Esnault N, Vacelet J (1996) Sponge phylogeny, animal monophyly, and the origin of the nervous system: 18S rRNA evidence. Can J Zool 74:2031–2045
Chombard C (1998) Les Demospongiae a Asters: Essai de phylogenie moleculaire homologiedo charactere “aster.” Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris
Chombard C, Boury-Esnault N (1999) Good congruence between morphology and molecular phylogeny of Hadromerida, or how to bother sponge taxonomists. Mem Queensland Mu 44:100
Chombard C, Boury-Esnault N, Tillier S (1998) Reassessment of homology of morphological characters in tetractinellid sponges based on molecular data. Syst Biol 47:351–366
Collins AG (1998) Evaluating multiple alternative hypotheses for the origin of Bilateria: An analysis of 18S rRNA molecular evidence. Proc Nal Acad Sci USA 95:15458–15463
De Rijk P, Wuyts J, Van de Peer Y, Winkelmans T, De Wachter R (2000) The European Large Subunit Ribosomal RNA database. Nucleic Acids Res 28:177–178
De Queiroz A (1993) For consensus (sometimes). Syst Biol 42:368–372
Dohrmann M, Voigt O, Erpenbeck D, Wörheide G (2006) Non-monophyly of most supraspecific taxa of calcareous sponges (Porifera, Calcarea) revealed by increased taxon sampling and partitioned Bayesian analysis of ribosomal DNA. Mol Phylogenet Evol 40(3): 830–843
Erpenbeck D (2004) On the phylogeny of halichondrid demosponges. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam
Erpenbeck D, Breeuwer JAJ, van Soest RWM (2005) Implications from a 28S rRNA gene fragment for the phylogenetic relationships of halichondrid sponges (Porifera: Demospongiae). J Zool Syst Evol Res 43:93–99
Erpenbeck D, McCormack GP, Breeuwer JAJ, van Soest RWM (2004) Order level differences in the structure of partial LSU across demosponges (Porifera): new insights into an old taxon. Mol Phylogenet Evol 32:388–395
Farris JS, Kallersjo M, Kluge AG, Bult C (1994) Permutations. Cladistics 10:65–76
Faulkner DJ (2000) Highlights of marine natural products chemistry (1972-1999). Natural Product Rep 17:1–6
Gautheret D, Konings D, Gutell RR (1995) G.U base pairing motifs in ribosomal RNA. RNA 1:807–814
Graybeal A (1998) Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? Syst Biol 47:9–17
Gu X, Fu YX, Li WH (1995) Maximum likelihood estimation of the heterogeneity of substitution rate among nucleotide sites. Mol Biol Evol 12:546–557
Hancock JM, Tautz D, Dover GA (1988) Evolution of the secondary structures and compensatory mutations of the ribosomal RNAs of Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Biol Evol 5:393–414
Herr RA, Ajello L, Taylor JW, Arseculeratne SN, Mendoza L (1999) Phylogenetic analysis of Rhinosporidium seeberi’s 18S small-subunit ribosomal DNA groups this pathogen among members of the protoctistan Mesomycetozoa clade. J Clin Microbiol 37:2750–2754
Higgs PG (2000) RNA secondary structure: physical and computational aspects. Q Rev Biophys 33:199–253
Hooper JNA, van Soest RWM (2002) Systema Porifera. A guide to the classification of sponges. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York
Hudelot C, Gowri-Shankar V, Jow H, Rattray M, Higgs PG (2003) RNA-based phylogenetic methods: application to mammalian mitochondrial RNA sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol 28:241–252
Huelsenbeck JP, Rannala B (2004) Frequentist properties of Bayesian posterior probabilities of phylogenetic trees under simple and complex substitution models. Syst Biol 53:904–913
Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F, Nielsen R, Bollback JP (2001) Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 294:2310–2314
Jeanmougin F, Thompson JD, Gouy M, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ (1998) Multiple sequence alignment with Clustal X. Trends Biochem Sci 23:403–405
Jow H, Hudelot C, Rattray M, Higgs PG (2002) Bayesian phylogenetics using an RNA substitution model applied to early mammalian evolution. Mol Biol Evol 19:1591–1601
Kass RE, Raftery AE (1995) Bayes factors. J Am Stat Assoc 90:773–795
Kelly Borges M, Pomponi SA (1994) Phylogeny and classification of lithistid sponges (Porifera: Demospongiae): a preliminary assessment using ribosomal DNA sequence comparisons. Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol 3:87–103
Kelly-Borges M, Bergquist PR, Bergquist PL (1991) Phylogenetic relationships within the order Hadromerida (Porifera, Demospongiae, Tetractinomorpha) as indicated by ribosomal-RNA sequence comparisons. Biochem Syst Ecol 19:117–125
Kim JH, Kim W, Cunningham CW (1999) A new perspective on lower metazoan relationships from 18S rDNA sequences. Mol Biol Evol 16:423–427
Kruse M, Leys SP, Müller IM, Müller WEG (1998) Phylogenetic position of the Hexactinellida within the phylum Porifera based on the amino acid sequence of the protein kinase C from Rhabdocalyptus dawsoni. J Mol Evol 46:721–728
Lafay B, Boury-Esnault N, Vacelet J, Christen R (1992) An analysis of partial 28S ribosomal RNA sequences suggests early radiation of sponges. BioSystems 28:139–151
Lartillot N, Philippe H (2006) Computing Bayes factors using thermodynamic integration. Syst Biol 55:195–207
Lemmon AR, Moriarty EC (2004) The importance of proper model assumption in Bayesian phylogenetics. Syst Biol 53:265–277
Lévi C (1957) Ontogeny and systematics in sponges. Syst Zool 6:1–4
Lévi C (1973) Systématique de la classe des Demospongiaria (Démosponges). In: Brien P, Lévi C, Sarà M, Tuzet O, Vacelet J (eds) Traité de Zoologie. Anatomie, Systématique, Biologie. III. Spongiaires. Masson et Cie, Paris, pp 577–631
Maddison WP, Maddison DR (1992) MacClade: analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA
Manuel M, Borchiellini C, Alivon E, Le Parco Y, Vacelet J, Boury-Esnault N (2003) Phylogeny and evolution of calcareous sponges: monophyly of Calcinea and Calcaronea, high level of morphological homoplasy, and the primitive nature of axial symmetry. Syst Biol 52:311–333
Manuel M, Le Parco Y, Borchiellini C (2004) Comparative analysis of Brachyury T-domains, with the characterization of two new sponge sequences, from a hexactinellid and a calcisponge. Gene 340:291–301
McCormack GP, Kelly M (2002) New indications of the phylogenetic affinity of Spongosorites suberitoides Diaz et al., 1993 (Porifera, Demospongiae) as revealed by 28S ribosomal DNA. J Nat Hist 36:1009–1021
McCormack GP, Erpenbeck D, Soest RWM van (2002) Major discrepancy between phylogenetic hypotheses based on molecular and morphological criteria within the order Haplosclerida (Phylum Porifera: Class Demospongiae). J Zool Syst Evol Res 40:237–240
Medina M, Collins AG, Silberman JD, Sogin ML (2001) Evaluating hypotheses of basal animal phylogeny using complete sequences of large and small subunit rRNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:9707–9712
Morse SE, Draper DE (1995) Purine-purine mismatches in RNA helices: evidencefor protonated G*A pairs and next-nearest neighbor effects. Nucleic Acids Res 23:302–306
Muse SV (1995) Evolutionary analyses of DNA sequences subject to constraints on secondary structure. Genetics 139:1429–1439
Nichols SA (2005) An evaluation of support for order-level monophyly and interrelationships within the class Demospongiae using partial data from the large subunit rDNA and cytochrome oxidase subunit I. Mol Phylogenet Evol 34:81–96
Nylander JAA, Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP, Nieves-Aldrey JL (2004) Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of combined data. Syst Biol 53:47–67
Otsuka J, Sugaya N (2003) Advanced formulation of base pair changes in the stem regions of ribosomal RNAs; its application to mitochondrial rRNAs for resolving the phylogeny of animals. J Theor Biol 222:447–460
Rannala B (2002) Identifiability of parameters in MCMC Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Syst Biol 51:754–760
Reitner J, Wörheide G (2002) Non-lithistid fossil Demospongiae—origins of their palaeobiodiversity and highlights in history of preservation. In: Hooper JNA, Soest RWM van (eds) Systema Porifera, a guide to the classification of sponges. KluwerAcademic/Plenum, New York, pp 52–70
Rokas A, Krüger D, Carroll SB (2006) Animal evolution and the molecular signature of radiations compressed in time. Science 310:1933–1938
Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP (2003) MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19:1572–1574
Rzhetsky A (1995) Estimating substitution rates in ribosomal RNA genes. Genetics 141:771–783
Savill NJ, Hoyle DC, Higgs PG (2001) RNA sequence evolution with secondary structure constraints: Comparison of substitution rate models using maximum-likelihood methods. Genetics 157:399–411
Schmitt S, Hentschel U, Zea S, Dandekar T, Wolf M (2005) ITS-2 and 18S rRNA gene phylogeny of Aplysinidae (Verongida, Demospongiae). J Mol Evol 60:327–336
Schnare MN, Damberger SH, Gray MW, Gutell RR (1996) Comprehensive comparison of structural characteristics in eukaryotic cytoplasmic large subunit (23 S-like) ribosomal RNA. J Mol Biol 256:701–719
Schöniger M, von Haeseler A (1994) A stochastic model for the evolution of autocorrelated DNA sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol 3:240–247
Schöniger M, von Haeseler A (1995) Performance of the maximum likelihood, neighbor joining, and maximum parsimony methods when sequence sites are not independent. Syst Biol 44:533–547
Schütze J, Krasko A, Custodio MR, Efremova SM, Müller IM, Müller WEG (1999) Evolutionary relationships of Metazoa within the eukaryotes based on molecular data from Porifera. Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 266:63–73
Swofford DL (2002) PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and other methods). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA
Swofford DL, Olsen GJ, Waddell PJ, Hillis DM (1996) Phylogenetic inference. In: Hillis DM, Moritz C, Marble KB (eds) Molecular systematics. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, pp 407–543
Tavaré S (1986) Some probabilistic and statisical problems on the analysis of DNA sequences. Lect Math Life Sci 17:57–86
Telford MJ, Wise MJ, Gowri-Shankar V (2005) Consideration of RNA secondary structure significantly improves likelihood-based estimates of phylogeny: examples from the Bilateria. Mol Biol Evol 22:1129–1136
Tillier ERM, Collins RA (1995) Neighbor joining and maximum-likelihood with RNA sequences—addressing the interdependence of sites. Mol Biol Evol 12:7–15
Yu JY, Thorne JL (2006) Dependence among sites in RNA evolution. Mol Biol Evol 23:1525–1537
Zrzavy J, Mihulka S, Kepka P, Bezdek A, Tietz D (1998) Phylogeny of the Metazoa based on morphological and 18S ribosomal DNA evidence. Cladistics 14:249–285
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the supercomputing facility of the University of Göttingen and Johan Nylander for advice on Bayes factors. Jeff Thorne and another, anonymous reviewer provided excellent suggestions to improve the manuscript. D.E. acknowledges financial support from the European Union under a Marie-Curie outgoing fellowship (MOIF-CT-2004 Contract No. 2882). G.W. acknowledges financial support from the German Research Foundation (DFG; Projects Wo896/3, 5), through the DFG Priority Program SPP1174 “Deep Metazoan Phylogeny” (Project Wo896/6), and the European Marie-Curie project HOTSPOTS (Contract MEST-CT-2005-020561).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
[Reviewing Editor: Dr. Rasmus Nielsen]
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Erpenbeck, D., Nichols, S.A., Voigt, O. et al. Phylogenetic Analyses Under Secondary Structure-Specific Substitution Models Outperform Traditional Approaches: Case Studies with Diploblast LSU. J Mol Evol 64, 543–557 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00239-006-0146-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00239-006-0146-3