Phylogeny – An Overview
Phylogenetics is anxious with the abstraction of evolutionary relatedness amid species, populations and groups of organisms. The capital abstraction in phylogenetics is that all of the bacilli on apple are acquired from one audible accustomed ancestor. Phylogenetics is additionally complex in the assembly of a phylogenetic tree, or dendrogram. A dendrogram visually depicts the evolutionary and affiliated relationships amid assorted organisms. They appearance breadth altered breed aggregate a accustomed antecedent in the accomplished (see amount 1).
As can be apparent from amount 1, a phylogenetic timberline can appearance breadth anniversary accumulation or breed already aggregate a accustomed ancestor, and additionally how carefully accompanying anniversary accumulation or breed is. For example, it can be apparent in the diagram aloft that groups B and C are added carefully related, as they allotment a added contempo accustomed antecedent (time 1), than they are with accumulation A (time 2). Anniversary bulge on the diagram breadth the curve bend represents the point at which a breed breach (or branched). The action through which a breed splits in to one or added new breed is accustomed as speciation. Speciation can arise back a breed becomes breach by agency of bounded isolation. The four modes actuality allopatric, parapatric, peripatric and sympatric (Baker, 2005) However, the admeasurement to which abiogenetic alluvion is complex in this action is still a amount of accustomed altercation (Venditti et al, 2010).
However, there are a cardinal of altered agency that breed can be accompanying depending aloft which characteristics are acclimated to differentiate or characterise them. The two capital characteristics acclimated are anxious with either morphological or atomic data. Morphological characteristics accommodate acquisitive (endothermic) or barbarous (ectothermic), control of a notochord, unicellular or multicellular etc. Atomic characteristics accommodate the assay of cellular DNA, RNA and alternative types of abiogenetic abstracts (DeSalle et al, 2002).
Before the appearance of avant-garde abiogenetic techniques that are all-important to abstraction atomic information, morphological abstracts was alone acclimated in the allocation of organisms. In the mid 1800s the aboriginal broadly accustomed affiliated timberline was produced by Ernst Haeckel (see amount 2).
Figure 2 – Monophyletic timberline of bacilli produced by Ernst Haeckel in 1866, anecdotic 3 capital groups of organism; Plantae, Protista and Animalia.
Along with the monophyletic tree, Haeckel additionally proposed the approach that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. That is, an organism’s development mirrors the evolutionary development of its breed (Breidbach, 2002). Although this approach has been abolished by avant-garde science, there are still scientists that accord acclaim to Haeckel’s theory. For example, Williamson (2006) posits that assertive embryos and larvae represent developed forms of alternative taxa that accept been transferred by agency of hybridisation. This is accustomed as the ‘Larval Alteration Theory’.
However, it should be acclaimed that the angle bidding by Williamson (2006) do not fit in with the accustomed angle in atomic biology, and there is abundant affirmation to the adverse of the abecedarian alteration theory, as categorical by Timmer (2009) and Hart et al (2009).
As ahead mentioned, the accession of technology able of analysing bacilli to the atomic akin has accustomed acceleration to a advanced ambit of differences amid the morphological and atomic relationships amid species.
One breadth of connected assay is that of the Hammerhead Bluff (family, Sphyrnidae). As their name would suggest, the hammerhead bluff ancestors is acclaimed from alternative bluff families by the audible appearance of their arch (see amount 3). That is, the appearance of the arch is dorsal-ventrally aeroembolism and alongside expanded. This anatomy is accustomed as the cephalofoil (Lim et al, 2010). Ecologically, sharks are a actual assorted accumulation encompassing an arrangement of the ocean’s best angry predators, abounding of which face over-exploitation and extinction. Phylogenetic relationships aural the bluff ancestors are, to date, still ailing understood, and phylogenetic estimations of accident antecedence is still of absolute accent because their abbreviating numbers (Zuavo et al, 2011).
Within the ancestors Sphyrnidae anniversary breed is morphologically altered based on the admeasurement and appearance of the cephalofoil and additionally the admeasurement of the anatomy in agency that decidedly affect anniversary species’ specific functionalities (see amount 5). Cephalofoil assay can alter absolutely greatly; for archetype the bonnethead bluff (Sphyrna tiburo) has an analogously angled cephalofoil admitting the winghead bluff (Eusphyra blochii) has a actual attenuated and widened cephalofoil (Cavalcanti, 2005)
Figure 3 – An archetype of the Scalloped Hammerhead Bluff assuming the bedfast and continued cephalofoil
In the past, abounding studies accept been conducted in to categorising the hammerhead bluff ancestors based up on their morphological features, and altered studies accept yielded altered abstracts (see amount 4).
Figure 4 – Comparison of the morphological arrange of the hammerhead bluff ancestors by two abstracted studies.
Considering that the studies of Gilbert (1967) and Compagno (1988) were both based on assay they alter absolutely abundantly in their conclusions. Almost all affected relationships alter aural the two studies with the exceptions of Carcharhinus, which both studies accede to be the oldest affiliate of the ancestors and. Reasons for these incongruities could be due to a abridgement of appearance development at aberration points, uncertainties in appearance polarity or poor adverse of appearance states (Arnold, 1990).
Figure 5 – Ultrametric timberline announcement the about-face with in the Sphyrnidae ancestors acquired anatomy nuclear gene data. The time calibration displayed assumes a alteration point amid forty and fifty actor years
The non-consensus encountered in morphologically apropos hammerhead sharks could additionally be, in part, due to the on activity agitation as to how the assay of the cephalofoil came about. Nakaya (1995) suggests that the accustomed bang shaped arch has acquired from alternative Carcharhinid sharks that accept hardly bedfast heads, and that a bedfast appearance provides hydrodynamic lift appropriately accretion their manoeuvrability (see amount 5).
Figure 6 – Altered morphologies of the hammerhead shark’s cephalofoil
However, it appears that for abate associates of the hammerhead ancestors the cephalofoil doesn’t infer any manoeuvrable advantages. Accordingly addition antecedent for the cephalofoil’s change involves the abeyant advantages of accession acoustic structures (eyes and nostrils) at the crabbed ends of the head, or beyond the head’s apparent with specific agenda to the ampullae of Lorenzini (Kajiura, 2001). However, it should be acclaimed that actual few of the hypotheses apropos the change of the cephalofoil accept been empirically activated (Cavalcanti, 2005). Furthermore, a added contempo abstraction by Kajiura et al (2002) begin no cogent aberration in electrosensory accession amid hammerhead sharks and alternative bluff families.
Modern technology has afresh been able to analyze and analyze the Sphyrnidae ancestors at a atomic level. This allows the accurate association to added accept the relationships aural the family, and amid its species. These accurate methods apply techniques that are able to carefully investigate the attenuate differences in abiogenetic actual that allows a added compassionate of how carefully (or distantly) assertive breed are accompanying aural a family.
Genetic assay of the hammerhead phylogeny can crop a new and astute assay of how the ancestors are related, and to the admeasurement of their intraspecific relatedness.
To investigate this breadth in greater detail, one charge argue the accurate abstract to annotate this amount further. It is accessible to differentiate anniversary breed (and accordingly anniversary individual) according to assertive abiogenetic data. For Example, a contempo abstraction conducted by Lim et al (2010) acclimated mitochondrial and nuclear genes to infer the phylogeny of the hammerhead bluff family.
The abstraction was based on mitochondrial and nuclear gene assay amounting to 6,292 abject pairs. Bayesian assay of their abstracts forth with Bayesian admiration of the breed timberline (BEST) (Liu, 2008) arise the aforementioned cartography of relationships aural the bluff family. Further, they conducted Shimodaira–Hasegawa tests that gave after-effects that they accept can abnegate antecedent hypotheses of the hammerhead phylogeny. They acknowledge that their new antecedent suggests that ancestors of all actual sharks were large, that is of a anatomy admeasurement of 200cm or greater. It is additionally appropriate by Lim et al that the baby anatomy admeasurement is acceptable to accept acquired alert at abstracted times and places. They additionally accept that already the cephalofoil acquired it went through aberrant change in abstracted lineages. Their antecedent on the aberrant change of the cephalofoil is mirrored by that out lined by The New Scientist (2009).
The genes advised in the address were 3 nuclear genes (Dlx1, Dlx2 and ITS ND2) and mitochondrial genes denoted as D-loop and Cyb + COI (see amount 6).
Figure 7 – Maximum likelyhood copse assuming the relationships aural and amid the brand Sphyrna, Eusphyra and Carcharhinus
Again, the after-effects actuality assume to alter absolutely a lot with anniversary gene analysis. However, the tests on all the genes assume to agree, to a assertive degree, that tiburo, corona, tudes and media all arise to be the best contempo additions to the Sphyrna family, and all tests additionally achieve that Carcharhinus is the best carefully accompanying to the family’s accustomed ancestor.
Firstly, the advancement that Carcharhinus is the oldest affiliate of the hammerhead ancestors compares favourably with the morphological studies agitated out by Gilbert (1967) and Compagno (1988). Secondly, the advancement that tiburo is the best contempo copy compares favourably with Gilbert (1967) but not with the added contempo abstraction by Compagno (1988).
As can be apparent from the antecedent discussions the atomic abstracts does not see to analyze actual favourably with the after-effects of the morphological data. Because that the two methods of allocation are alter absolutely considerably, it comes as no abundant abruptness that they are able of acquiescent decidedly altered results. To columnist this point further, a address by Pisani et al (2007) statistically analysed incongruence in, and between, 181 atomic copse and 49 morphological trees. The abstraction was undertaken to claiming the widely-held appearance that atomic phylogeny should booty antecedence over morphological phylogeny. As would be expected, incongruence was begin to be greater amid (as against to within) morphological and atomic copse and this was accurate to be statistically decidedly different. Atomic copse did, however, appearance a college boilerplate accordance but the aberration wasn’t statistically apparent to be significant.
Their after-effects assume to announce that it would be decidedly advantageous to analyze both atomic and morphological copse to ascertain areas of incongruence. Furthermore, the address highlights the actuality that one anatomy of phylogenetic assay should not automatically be advised to be added advantageous (or absolutely correct) than another.
However, there are assertive exceptions breadth one anatomy of phylogenetic assay should be advised a priori. For example, it can be acutely difficult to morphologically abstraction the phylogeny of diminutive bacilli such as bacteria. Although bacilli do leave fossils (such as in assertive stromatalites) they tend to abridgement the characteristic morphological appearance that are present in beyond organisms. As a result, atomic abstracts is a far added able way of reconstructing their phylogeny (DeLong et al, 2001).
Another accumulation of bacilli that don’t leave a acceptable deposit almanac are the Elasmobranchs (sharks, skates and rays). This is due to the actuality that they are cartilaginous angle and accordingly it is attenuate to acquisition a abounding deposit in acceptable condition. It is added common, however, to acquisition the fossilised charcoal of their teeth. It is accessible to analyze the evolutionary accomplished of an beastly aloof by analytical tooth fossils as apparent by Nyberg et al (2006).
Overall, it would assume that in some cases the morphological abstracts does analyze favourably with the atomic data, but in abounding cases this is aloof not the case. In best cases application both methods calm seems to be the best benign way for the assiduity of phylogenetic studies.
Arnold, E. N. (1990) Why do Morphological Phylogenies Alter in QualityAn Assay Based on the Comparative History of Lizard Clades, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 240 (1297), pp. 135-172
Baker, J. M. (2005) Adaptive speciation: The role of accustomed alternative in mechanisms of geographic and non-geographic speciation, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36 (1), pp. 303-326
Breidbach, O. (2002) The above amalgam – Some animadversion on the typological accomplishments of Haeckel’s account about evolution, Approach in Biosciences, 121 (3), pp. 280-296
Cavalcanti, M. J. (2005) A Phylogenetic Supertree of the Hammerhead Sharks (Carcharhiniformes: Sphyrnidae), Zoological Studies, 46 (1), pp. 173-188.
Compagno, L. J. V. (1988) Sharks of the adjustment Carcharhiniformes, Princeton University Press, pp. 1–542.
DeLong, E. F. and Pace, N. R. (2001) Environmental Diversity of Bacilli and Archaea, Systematic Biology, 50 (4), pp. 470-478
DeSalle, R., Giribet, G. and Wheeler, W. (2002) Techniques in Atomic Systematics and Evolution, BertelsmannSpringer Publishing Group, Switzerland.
Gilbert, C. R. (1967) A afterlight of the hammerhead sharks (Family Sphyrnidae), Proceedings of the US National Museum, 119 (1), pp. 1-87
Hart, M. W. and Grosberg, R. K. (2009) Caterpillars did not advance from onychophorans by hybridogenesis, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107 (3), pp. 146-173
Kajiura, S. M. (2001) Arch Assay and Electrosensory Pore Distribution of Carcharhinid and Sphyrnid Sharks, Environmental Assay of Fishes, 61 (2), pp. 125-133
Kajiura, S. M. and Holland, K. N. (2002) Electroreception in adolescent scalloped hammerhead and sandbar sharks, Journal of Experimental Biology, 205 (23), pp. 3609-3621
Lim, D. D., Motta, P., Mara, K. and Matin, A. P. (2010) Phylogeny of hammerhead sharks (Family Sphyrnidae) accepted from mitochondrial and nuclear genes, Atomic Phylogenetics and Evolution, 55 (2), pp. 572-579
Liu, L. (2008) BEST: Bayesian admiration of breed copse beneath the coalescent model, Bioinformatics, 24 (21), pp. 2542-2543
Nakaya, K. (1995) Hydrodynamic Function of the Arch in Hammerhead Sharks (Elasmobranchii: Sphyrnidae), American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, 2 (1), pp. 330-336
Nyberg, K. G., Ciampaglio, C. N. and Wray, G. A. (2006)Tracing the ancestor of the abundant white shark, carcharodon carcharias, application morphometric analyses of deposit teeth, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 26 (04), pp. 806-814
The New Scientist (2009) Why the hammerhead bluff got its hammer, 204 (2737), pp. 18-19
Pisani, D., Benton, M. J. and Wilkinson, M. (2007) Accordance of Morphological and Atomic Phylogenies, Acta Biotheoretica, 55 (3), pp. 269-281
Timmer, J. (2009) Online Article, ARS Technica, http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/examining-science-on-the-fringes-vital-but-generally-wrong.ars (03/04/11)
Venditti, C. and Pagel, M. (2010) Speciation as an alive force in announcement abiogenetic evolution, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25 (1), pp. 14-20
Williamson, D. I. (2006) Hybridization in the change of beastly anatomy and life-cycle, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 148 (4), pp. 585-602.
Zuavo, X. V. and Agnarsson, I. (2011) Bluff tales: A atomic species-level phylogeny of sharks (Selachimorpha, Chondrichthyes), Atomic Phylogenetics and Evolution, 58 (2), pp. 207-217.
Figure 1: http://archive.peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/treeoflife/phylo.html (01/04/11)
Figure 2: http://plus.maths.org/content/reconstructing-tree-life (03/04/11)
Figure 3: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2008/jun/12/wildlife.endangeredspecies (01/04/11)
Figures 4, 5 and 7: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiCaptionURL&_method=retrieve&_udi=B6WNH-4Y9SVTC-5&_image=fig1&_ba=1&_user=7351886&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2010&_alid=1706627755&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=6963&_issn=10557903&_pii=S1055790310000485&_st=13&view=c&_acct=C000043322&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=7351886&md5=47adf1451dd80db0b6077f77efad3225 (02/04/11)
Figure 6: http://deepseanews.com/wpcontent/uploads/2009/12/screenshot_01.jpg (02/0411)
Order a unique copy of this paper