Phylogeny of Annelida (Lophotrochozoa): total-evidence analysis of morphology and six genes

Zrzavý, Jan; Říha, Pavel; Piálek, Lubomír; Janouškovec, Jan

doi:10.1186/1471-2148-9-189

Cited by 122 publications

(132 citation statements)

References 68 publications

(132 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

124

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This morphology based cladistic hypothesis was never supported by molecular phylogenetic analyses, but if included Clitellata usually appeared as a polychaete in-group (e.g., McHugh, 1997;Bleidorn et al, 2003;Rousset et al, 2007;Zrzavy et al, 2009;Struck et al, 2007Struck et al, , 2008Struck et al, , 2011. In addition, monophyly of the basal group Scolecida was never recovered by molecular analyses.…”

Section: Annelid Systematicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematics, evolution and phylogeny of Annelida – a morphological perspective

Purschke¹,

Bleidorn²,

Struck³

2014

Mem. Mus. Vic.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purschke, G., Bleidorn, C. and Struck, T. 2014. Systematics, evolution and phylogeny of Annelida -a morphological perspective . Memoirs of Museum Victoria 71: 247-269.Annelida, traditionally divided into Polychaeta and Clitellata, is an evolutionary ancient and ecologically important group today usually considered to be monophyletic. However, there is a long debate regarding the in-group relationships as well as the direction of evolutionary changes within the group. This debate is correlated to the extraordinary evolutionary diversity of this group. Although annelids may generally be characterised as organisms with multiple repetitions of identically organised segments and usually bearing certain other characters such as a collagenous cuticle, chitinous chaetae or nuchal organs, none of these are present in every subgroup. This is even true for the annelid key character, segmentation. The first morphology-based cladistic analyses of polychaetes showed Polychaeta and Clitellata as sister groups. The former were divided into Scolecida and Palpata comprising Aciculata and Canalipalpata. This systematisation definitely replaced the old concept of dividing polychaetes into Errantia and Sedentaria, whereas the group Archiannelida had already been abandoned. The main critics came from a contradicting hypothesis relying on scenario based on plausibility considerations regarding Clitellata as highly derived annelids nesting within polychaetes and rendering the latter paraphyletic. In this hypothesis the absences of typical polychaete characters were regarded as losses rather than as primary absences. However, to date attempts to unambiguously identify the sister group of Clitellata on the basis of morphological characters have failed. Thus, two hypotheses on the last common annelid ancestor have been put forward either being an oligochaete-like burrowing animal or a parapodia-bearing epibenthic worm. These attempts to understand the major transitions in annelid evolution are reviewed and discussed in the light of new morphological evidence such as photoreceptor cell and eye evolution as well as the evolution of the nervous system and musculature. We also discuss the plausibility of these scenarios with regard to recent advances in molecular phylogenetic analyses.

show abstract

Section: Annelid Systematicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematics, evolution and phylogeny of Annelida – a morphological perspective

Purschke¹,

Bleidorn²,

Struck³

2014

Mem. Mus. Vic.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within the diverse phylum Annelida, Capitella and Helobdella are distantly related genera (Struck et al 2007;Zrzavy et al 2009) and differ extensively in terms of morphology and development (Sawyer 1986). Capitella, for example, undergoes semidirect development, producing a nonfeeding larva that metamorphoses into a juvenile worm, whereas leech undergoes direct development, skipping the larval stage altogether Seaver et al 2005).…”

Section: Conservation and Diversification Of Wnt Paralogs In Annelidamentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary Dynamics of the wnt Gene Family: A Lophotrochozoan Perspective

Cho¹,

Vallès²,

Giani

et al. 2010

Molecular Biology and Evolution

121

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The wnt gene family encodes a set of secreted glycoproteins involved in key developmental processes, including cell fate specification and regulation of posterior growth (Cadigan KM, Nusse R. 1997 . To obtain a more comprehensive scenario of the evolutionary dynamics of this gene family, we exhaustively mined wnt gene sequences from the whole genome assemblies of a mollusk (Lottia gigantea) and two annelids (Capitella teleta and Helobdella robusta) and examined them by phylogenetic, genetic linkage, intron-exon structure, and embryonic expression analyses. The 36 wnt genes obtained represent 11, 12, and 9 distinct wnt subfamilies in Lottia, Capitella, and Helobdella, respectively. Thus, two of the three analyzed lophotrochozoan genomes retained an almost complete ancestral complement of wnt genes emphasizing the importance and complexity of this gene family across metazoans. The genome of the leech Helobdella reflects significantly more dynamism than those of Lottia and Capitella, as judged by gene duplications and losses, branch length, and changes in genetic linkage. Finally, we performed a detailed expression analysis for all the Helobdella wnt genes during embryonic development. We find that, although the patterns show substantial overlap during early cleavage stages, each wnt gene has a unique expression pattern in the germinal plate and during tissue morphogenesis. Comparisons of the embryonic expression patterns of the duplicated wnt genes in Helobdella with their orthologs in Capitella reveal extensive regulatory diversification of the duplicated leech wnt genes.

show abstract

“…Although we do not have a good understanding of the phylogeny of the group in relation to other polychaetes, since the family Histriobdellidae is usually excluded from studies (e.g. Zrzavý et al 2009), this migratory behavior may be a common behavior in the Eunicida. The case of the free-living Palola viridis Gray in Stair, 1847, which migrates to a common reproductive area at a specifi c time on one day of the year, is well known.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%