A Phylogenomic Perspective on the Radiation of Ray-Finned Fishes Based upon Targeted Sequencing of Ultraconserved Elements (UCEs)

Abstract

Ray-finned fishes constitute the dominant radiation of vertebrates with over 32,000 species. Although molecular phylogenetics has begun to disentangle major evolutionary relationships within this vast section of the Tree of Life, there is no widely available approach for efficiently collecting phylogenomic data within fishes, leaving much of the enormous potential of massively parallel sequencing technologies for resolving major radiations in ray-finned fishes unrealized. Here, we provide a genomic perspective on longstanding questions regarding the diversification of major groups of ray-finned fishes through targeted enrichment of ultraconserved nuclear DNA elements (UCEs) and their flanking sequence. Our workflow efficiently and economically generates data sets that are orders of magnitude larger than those produced by traditional approaches and is well-suited to working with museum specimens. Analysis of the UCE data set recovers a well-supported phylogeny at both shallow and deep time-scales that supports a monophyletic relationship between Amia and Lepisosteus (Holostei) and reveals elopomorphs and then osteoglossomorphs to be the earliest diverging teleost lineages. Our approach additionally reveals that sequence capture of UCE regions and their flanking sequence offers enormous potential for resolving phylogenetic relationships within ray-finned fishes.

Full text

Its licence does not allow us to show the full text. Read it at PubMed Central:

References 54

1. 1.

   Nelson G (1969 ) Gill arches and the phylogeny of fishes, with notes on the classification of verte-brates. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 141: 465–552.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   Olsen P (1984 ) The skull and pectoral girdle of the parasemionotid fish Watsonulus eugnathoides from the Early Triassic Sakamena Group of Madagascar, with comments on the relationships of the holostean fishes. J Vert Paleontol 4: 481–499.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   Patterson C (1973) Interrelationships of holosteans. In: Greenwood P, Miles R, Patterson C, editors, Interrelationships of fishes, London: Academic Press. pp. 207–226.

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   Li C, Lu G, Orti G (2008 ) Optimal data partitioning and a test case for ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) based on ten nuclear loci. Syst Biol 57: 519.

   Not in our library10.1080/10635150802206883

5. 5.

   Inoue JG, Miya M, Tsukamoto K, Nishida M (2003 ) Basal actinopterygian relationships: A mi-togenomic perspective on the phylogeny of the “ancient fish”. Mol Phylogenet Evol 26: 110–120.

   Not in our library10.1016/s1055-7903(02)00331-7

6. 6.

   Patterson C, Rosen D (1977 ) Review of ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 158: 83–172.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   Arratia G (2001 ) The sister-group of Teleostei: Consensus and disagreements. J Vert Paleontol 21: 767–773.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   Arratia G (2010 ) The clupeocephala re-visited: Analysis of characters and homologies. Rev Biol Mar Oceanog 45: 635–657.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   Arratia G (2004) Mesozoic halecostomes and the early radiation of teleosts. In: Arratia G, Tintori A, editors, Mesozoic fishes 3, Munich, Germany: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil. pp. 279–315.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    Cloutier R, Arratia G (2004) Early diversification of actinopterygians. In: Arratia G, Wilson MVH, Cloutier R, editors, Recent advances in the Origin and Early Radiation of Vertebrates, Munich, Germany: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil. pp. 217–270.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    Le H, Lecointre G, Perasso R (1993 ) A 28S rRNA-based phylogeny of the gnathostomes: First steps in the analysis of conict and congruence with morphologically based cladograms. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2: 31–51.

    Not in our library10.1006/mpev.1993.1005

12. 12.

    Broughton RI (2010) Phylogeny of teleosts based on motochondrial genome sequences. In: Nelson J, Schultz H, Wilson M, editors, Origin and Phylogenetic Interrelationships of Teleosts, Munchen: Verlag. pp. 61–76.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    Inoue JG, Miya M, Venkatesh B, Nishida M (2005 ) The mitochondrial genome of Indonesian coela-canth Latimeria menadoensis (Sarcopterygii: Coelacanthiformes) and divergence time estimation between the two coelacanths. Gene 349: 227–235.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.gene.2005.01.008

14. 14.

    Near TJ, Eytan RI, Dornburg A, Kuhn KL, Moore JA, et al (2012 ) Resolution of ray-finned fish phylogeny and timing of diversification. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109: 13698–13703.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1206625109

15. 15.

    Zou M, Guo B, Tao W, Arratia G, He S (2012 ) Integrating multi-origin expression data improves the resolution of deep phylogeny of ray-finned fish (Actinopterygii). Sci Rep 2.

    Not in our library10.1038/srep00665

16. 16.

    Faircloth B, McCormack J, Crawford N, Harvey M, Brumfield R, et al (2012 ) Ultraconserved elements anchor thousands of genetic markers for target enrichment spanning multiple evolutionary timescales. Syst Biol 61: 717–726.

    Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/sys004

17. 17.

    McCormack J, Faircloth B, Crawford N, Gowaty P, Brumfield R, et al (2012 ) DNA anking ultra-conserved elements provides novel phylogenetic markers and resolves placental mammal phylogeny when combined with species tree analysis. Genome Res 22: 746–754.

    Not in our library10.1101/gr.125864.111

18. 18.
    A Phylogeny of Birds Based on Over 1,500 Loci Collected by Target Enrichment and High-Throughput Sequencing · 2013

    No notice
19. 19.

    Crawford NG, Faircloth BC, McCormack JE, Brumfield RT, Winker K, et al (2012 ) More than 1000 ultraconserved elements provide evidence that turtles are the sister group of archosaurs. Biol Lett 8: 783–786.

    Not in our library10.1098/rsbl.2012.0331

20. 20.

    Grande L (2010 ) An empirical synthetic pattern study of gars (Lepisosteiformes) and closely related species, based mostly on skeletal anatomy: the resurrection of Holostei. Supplementary issue of Copeia 10: 1–863.

    Not in our library

21. 21.

    De Pinna M (1996) Teleostean monophyly. In: Stiassny ML, Parenti LR, Johnson GD, editors, Interrelationships of Fishes, San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 147–162.

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    Zaragueta-Bagils R, Lavoue S, Tillier A, Bonillo C, Lecointre G (2002 ) Assessment of otocephalan and protacanthopterygian concepts in the light of multiple molecular phylogenies. C R Biol 325: 1191–1207.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1631-0691(02)01535-4

23. 23.

    Davidson WS, Koop BF, Jones SJM, Iturra P, Vidal R, et al (2010 ) Sequencing the genome of the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Genome Biology 11: 403.

    Not in our library10.1186/gb-2010-11-9-403

24. 24.

    Li C, Lu G, Orti G (2008 ) Optimal data partitioning and a test case for ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) based on ten nuclear loci. Syst Biol 57: 519–539.

    Not in our library10.1080/10635150802206883

25. 25.

    Inoue JG, Miya M, Tsukamoto K, Nishida M (2003 ) Basal actinopterygian relationships: A mi-togenomic perspective on the phylogeny of the “ancient fish”. Mol Phylogenet Evol 26: 110–120.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1055-7903(02)00331-7

26. 26.

    Venkatesh B, Erdmann M, Brenner S (2001 ) Molecular synapomorphies resolve evolutionary rela-tionships of extant jawed vertebrates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 11382–11387.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.201415598

27. 27.

    Mabuchi K, Miya M, Azuma Y, Nishida M (2007 ) Independent evolution of the specialized pha-ryngeal jaw apparatus in cichlid and labrid fishes. BMC Evol Biol 7: 10.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2148-7-10

28. 28.

    Wainwright P, Smith W, Price S (2012 ) The evolution of pharyngognathy: A phylogenetic and functional appraisal of the pharyngeal jaw key innovation in labroid fishes and beyond. Syst Biol 61: 1001–1027.

    Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/sys060

29. 29.

    Smith W, Wheeler W (2006 ) Venom evolution widespread in fishes: A phylogenetic road map for the bioprospecting of piscine venoms. J Hered 97: 206–217.

    Not in our library10.1093/jhered/esj034

30. 30.

    Smith W, Craig M (2007 ) Casting the percomorph net widely: The importance of broad taxonomic sampling in the search for the placement of serranid and percid fishes. Copeia 1: 35–55.

    Not in our library

31. 31.

    Dettai A, Lecointre G (2005 ) Further support for the clades obtained by multiple molecular phy-logenies in the acanthomorph bush. C R Biol 328: 674–689.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.crvi.2005.04.002

32. 32.
    Did genome duplication drive the origin of teleosts? A comparative study of diversification in ray-finned fishes · 2009

    No notice
33. 33.
    A Phylogenomic Perspective on the Radiation of Ray-Finned Fishes Based upon Targeted Sequencing of Ultraconserved Elements (UCEs) · 2013

    No notice
34. 34.

    Meynard CN, Mouillot D, Mouquet N, Douzery EJP (2012 ) A phylogenetic perspective on the evolution of mediterranean teleost fishes. PLoS ONE 7: e36443.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0036443

35. 35.

    Genner MJ, Seehausen O, Lunt DH, Joyce DA, Shaw PW, et al (2007 ) Age of cichlids: new dates for ancient lake fish radiations. Molecular Biology and Evolution 24: 1269–1282.

    Not in our library10.1093/molbev/msm050

36. 36.

    Harris R (2007) Improved pairwise alignment of genomic DNA. Ph.D. thesis, The Pennsylvania State University.

    Not in our library

37. 37.

    Tewhey R, Nakano M, Wang X, Pabon-Pena C, Novak B, et al (2009 ) Enrichment of sequencing targets from the human genome by solution hybridization. Genome Biol 10: R116.

    Not in our library10.1186/gb-2009-10-10-r116

38. 38.
    Rapid, low-input, low-bias construction of shotgun fragment libraries by high-density in vitro transposition · 2010

    No notice
39. 39.
    Not All Sequence Tags Are Created Equal: Designing and Validating Sequence Identification Tags Robust to Indels · 2012

    No notice
40. 40.

    Zerbino D, Birney E (2008 ) Velvet: Algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de Bruijn graphs. Genome Res 18: 821–829.

    Not in our library10.1101/gr.074492.107

41. 41.

    Katoh K, Kuma K, Toh H, Miyata T (2005 ) MAFFT version 5: Improvement in accuracy of multiple sequence alignment. Nucleic Acids Res 33: 511–518.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gki198

42. 42.

    Nylander J (2004) MrAIC.pl. Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala University: Program dis-tributed by the author.

    Not in our library

43. 43.

    Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP (2003 ) MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19: 1572–1574.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180

44. 44.

    Stamatakis A, Ott M (2008 ) Effcient computation of the phylogenetic likelihood function on multi-gene alignments and multi-core architectures. Philos Trans R Soc Lond, B, Biol Sci 363: 3977–3984.

    Not in our library10.1098/rstb.2008.0163

45. 45.

    Kubatko L, Degnan J (2007 ) Inconsistency of phylogenetic estimates from concatenated data under coalescence. Syst Biol 56: 17–24.

    Not in our library10.1080/10635150601146041

46. 46.

    Edwards S, Liu L, Pearl D (2007 ) High-resolution species trees without concatenation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 5936–5941.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0607004104

47. 47.

    Edwards S (2009 ) Is a new and general theory of molecular systematics emerging? Evolution 63: 1–19.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00549.x

48. 48.

    Bayzid MS, Warnow T (2012 ) Estimating optimal species trees from incomplete gene trees under deep coalescence. J Comput Biol 19: 591–605.

    Not in our library10.1089/cmb.2012.0037

49. 49.

    Castillo-Ramrez S, Liu L, Pearl D, Edwards S, Knowles L, et al.. (2010) Bayesian estimation of species trees: A practical guide to optimal sampling and analysis. In: Estimating species trees: Practical and theoretical aspects, Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 15–33.

    Not in our library

50. 50.

    Guindon S, Dufayard JF, Lefort V, Anisimova M, Hordijk W, et al (2010 ) New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: Assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst Biol 59: 307–321.

    Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/syq010

51. 51.

    Liu L, Yu L, Kubatko L, Pearl DK, Edwards SV (2009 ) Coalescent methods for estimating phylo-genetic trees. Mol Phylogenet Evol 53: 320–328.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ympev.2009.05.033

52. 52.

    Liu L, Yu L, Pearl DK, Edwards SV (2009 ) Estimating species phylogenies using coalescence times among sequences. Syst Biol 58: 468–477.

    Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/syp031

53. 53.

    Liu L, Yu L (2010 ) Phybase: an R package for species tree analysis. Bioinformatics 26: 962–963.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btq062

54. 54.

    Seo TK (2008 ) Calculating bootstrap probabilities of phylogeny using multilocus sequence data. Mol Biol and Evol 25: 960–971.

    Not in our library10.1093/molbev/msn043

Cited by papers we hold 6

• Paleogene emergence and evolutionary history of the Amazonian fossorial fish genus Tarumania (Teleostei: Tarumaniidae) · 2022
  Not checked
• Phylogeny, diversification, and biogeography of a hemiclonal hybrid system of native Australian freshwater fishes (Gobiiformes: Gobioidei: Eleotridae: Hypseleotris) · 2022
  Not checked
• The Prevalence and Impact of Model Violations in Phylogenetic Analysis · 2019
  No notice
• Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes · 2017
  No notice
• Expanding anchored hybrid enrichment to resolve both deep and shallow relationships within the spider tree of life · 2016
  No notice
• Target enrichment of ultraconserved elements from arthropods provides a genomic perspective on relationships among H ymenoptera · 2014
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.