Phylogenetic relationships of freshwater sponges (Porifera, Spongillina) inferred from analyses of 18S rDNA, COI mtDNA, and ITS2 rDNA sequences

Abstract

Phylogenetic relationships of freshwater sponges (Porifera, Spongillina) inferred from analyses of 18S rDNA, COI mtDNA, and ITS2 rDNA sequences. -Zoologica Scripta , 34 , 549-557. The phylogenetic relationships of nine species of freshwater sponges, representing the families Spongillidae, Lubomirskiidae, and Metaniidae, were inferred from analyses of 18S rDNA, cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) mtDNA, and internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) rDNA sequences. These species form a strongly supported monophyletic group within the Demospongiae, with the lithistid Vetulina stalactites as the sister taxon. Within the freshwater sponge clade, the basal taxon is not resolved. Depending upon the method of analysis and sequence, the metaniid species, Corvomeyenia sp., or the spongillid species, Trochospongilla pennsylvanica , emerges as the basal species. Among the remaining freshwater sponge species, the spongillids, Spongilla lacustris and Eunapius fragilis , form a sister group to a clade comprised of the spongillid species, Clypeatula cooperensis , Ephydatia fluviatilis , and Ephydatia muelleri , and the lubomirskiid species, Baikalospongia bacillifera and Lubomisrkia baicalensis . C. cooperensis is the sister taxon of E. fluvialitis , and E. muelleri is the sister taxon of ( B. bacillifera + L. baicalensis ). The family Spongillidae and the genus Ephydatia are thus paraphyletic with respect to the lubomirskiid species; Ephydatia is also paraphyletic to C. cooperensis . We suggest that C. cooperensis be transferred to the genus Ephydatia and that the family Lubomirskiidae be subsumed into the Spongillidae.

Insights into the evolution of freshwater sponges (Porifera: Demospongiae: Spongillina): Barcoding and phylogenetic data from Lake Tanganyika endemics indicate multiple invasions and unsettle existing taxonomy

“…Maikova et al, 2010). This observation led to speculations that Ephydatia is not monophyletic and that species belonging to Lubomirskiidae may have evolved from one of these ''Ephydatia'' lineages (Addis and Peterson, 2005;Meixner et al, 2007). Likewise the COI data rejects monophyly for the endemic family Lubomirskiidae, similar to 18S rDNA analyses (e.g.…”

“…Nonetheless, until recently, all molecular data have suggested that the freshwater sponges are monophyletic (e.g. Addis and Peterson, 2005;Redmond et al, 2007).…”

First records of Geodia demosponges from the New England seamounts, an opportunity to test the use of DNA mini-barcodes on museum specimens

“…Knowing that sponge COI barcoding is already limited due to its slow evolution (Schuster et al 2017, and references within) up to the point that it cannot discriminate close species (Addis and Peterson 2005;Cárdenas and Rapp 2012;Carella et al 2016), the minibarcode worsens the problem. And yet, in our small study, the universal mini-barcode unambiguously identified the Geodia genus, which could already be of tremendous help for taxonomists, ecologists and other end-users of sponge barcoding.…”

Applications of PCR-RFLPs for differentiating two freshwater sponges: Ephydatia fluviatilis and Ephydatia mülleri

“…The ITS2 fragment of the nuclear ribosomal DNA (nrDNA) gene is a multi-copy marker having a rapid evolution rate; it has been already used in sponges to discriminate species and genera and to perform population genetic studies (Vollmer & Palumbi, 2004;Wörheide et al, 2004;Addis & Peterson, 2005). The large ribosomal 28S segment consists of 12 domains, some presenting a great variability, which becomes useful to solve genetic relationships at the level of order or family (Erpenbeck et al, 2004;Roovere et al, 2006).…”

“…These sponges are highly resistant to environmental stress thanks also to the asexual reproduction that they act through gemmules development. E. fluviatilis and E. mu¨lleri are morphologically very similar, and species discrimination, essentially based upon the gemmuloscleres, may be difficult (Addis & Peterson, 2005). The fact that the occurrence of gemmules is sporadic, and that often, as in the case of historical collections, just a single preserved specimen is available, caused a lack of efficiently of the morphological discrimination of these species (Hsieh et al, 2005;Lin & Hwang, 2007).…”