| Literature DB >> 22188734 |
Fernando G Cánovas1, Catarina F Mota, Ester A Serrão, Gareth A Pearson.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding the processes driving speciation in marine ecosystems remained a challenge until recently, due to the unclear nature of dispersal boundaries. However, recent evidence for marine adaptive radiations and ecological speciation, as well as previously undetected patterns of cryptic speciation is overturning this view. Here, we use multi-gene phylogenetics to infer the family-level evolutionary history of Fucaceae (intertidal brown algae of the northern Pacific and Atlantic) in order to investigate recent and unique patterns of radiative speciation in the genus Fucus in the Atlantic, in contrast with the mainly monospecific extant genera.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22188734 PMCID: PMC3292578 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-371
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Genomic data estimations
| Fucus clade 1 | Fucus clade 2 | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | H.ca | P.ca | S.com | |||||||||||||
| 2.56 | 0.004 ± 0.001 | 0.004 ± 0.001 | 0.006 ± 0.001 | 0.007 ± 0.002 | 0.006 ± 0.001 | 0.007 ± 0.001 | 0.008 ± 0.002 | 0.006 ± 0.001 | 0.006 ± 0.001 | 0.014 ± 0.003 | 0.026 ± 0.004 | 0.014 ± 0.003 | 0.027 ± 0.005 | 0.026 ± 0.004 | ||
| Fucus lineage 1 | 2.67 | 0.001 ± 0.000 | 0.007 ± 0.002 | 0.008 ± 0.002 | 0.007 ± 0.002 | 0.007 ± 0.002 | 0.009 ± 0.002 | 0.007 ± 0.002 | 0.007 ± 0.002 | 0.015 ± 0.003 | 0.027 ± 0.005 | 0.015 ± 0.003 | 0.028 ± 0.005 | 0.027 ± 0.005 | ||
| 0.00 | 0.007 ± 0.002 | 0.008 ± 0.002 | 0.007 ± 0.002 | 0.008 ± 0.002 | 0.009 ± 0.002 | 0.008 ± 0.002 | 0.008 ± 0.002 | 0.016 ± 0.003 | 0.027 ± 0.005 | 0.015 ± 0.003 | 0.029 ± 0.005 | 0.027 ± 0.005 | ||||
| 0.00 | 0.002 ± 0.001 | 0.002 ± 0.001 | 0.014 ± 0.003 | 0.024 ± 0.004 | 0.013 ± 0.003 | 0.025 ± 0.005 | 0.025 ± 0.004 | |||||||||
| 2.67 | 0.002 ± 0.001 | 0.003 ± 0.001 | 0.004 ± 0.001 | 0.002 ± 0.001 | 0.002 ± 0.001 | 0.014 ± 0.003 | 0.025 ± 0.004 | 0.013 ± 0.003 | 0.026 ± 0.004 | 0.025 ± 0.004 | ||||||
| Fucus lineage 2 | 0.44 | 0.002 ± 0.001 | 0.014 ± 0.003 | 0.024 ± 0.004 | 0.013 ± 0.003 | 0.025 ± 0.005 | 0.025 ± 0.004 | |||||||||
| 1.27 | 0.002 ± 0.001 | 0.014 ± 0.003 | 0.025 ± 0.004 | 0.013 ± 0.003 | 0.026 ± 0.005 | 0.025 ± 0.004 | ||||||||||
| 2.00 | 0.002 ± 0.001 | 0.002 ± 0.001 | 0.015 ± 0.003 | 0.026 ± 0.004 | 0.015 ± 0.003 | 0.027 ± 0.005 | 0.027 ± 0.005 | |||||||||
| 0.78 | 0.014 ± 0.003 | 0.024 ± 0.004 | 0.013 ± 0.003 | 0.026 ± 0.004 | 0.025 ± 0.004 | |||||||||||
| 0.78 | 0.014 ± 0.004 | 0.024 ± 0.005 | 0.013 ± 0.004 | 0.025 ± 0.005 | 0.025 ± 0.005 | |||||||||||
| 1.38 | 1.46 | 1.49 | 1.31 | 1.33 | 1.31 | 1.34 | 1.48 | 1.32 | 1.31 | 7.33 | 0.025 ± 0.004 | 0.008 ± 0.002 | 0.027 ± 0.005 | 0.025 ± 0.004 | ||
| 2.47 | 2.55 | 2.58 | 2.32 | 2.34 | 2.32 | 2.35 | 2.49 | 2.33 | 2.32 | 2.41 | 0.00 | 0.024 ± 0.004 | 0.027 ± 0.005 | 0.025 ± 0.004 | ||
| 1.34 | 1.41 | 1.45 | 1.22 | 1.25 | 1.23 | 1.25 | 1.40 | 1.23 | 1.23 | 2.25 | 14.67 | 0.024 ± 0.004 | 0.023 ± 0.004 | |||
| 2.57 | 2.69 | 2.72 | 2.41 | 2.44 | 2.42 | 2.44 | 2.59 | 2.42 | 2.42 | 2.60 | 2.54 | 2.30 | 0.67 | 0.014 ± 0.003 | ||
Number of base substitutions per site and standard error (1000 bootstraps) calculated using the maximum composite likelihood method ([92] provided in MEGA v4.1 [93]; above diagonal) and percentage of divergence based on average number of differences (below diagonal) between species. Divergence levels lower than 1% as well as zero substitutions are emphasized. Diagonal elements: number of pairwise differences within species.
Figure 1Multi-gene phylogenetic reconstruction from 13 cDNA loci. Multi-gene phylogenetic reconstructions using 13 nuclear transcriptomic regions. Shown are the 50% majority rule consensus tree of maximum likelihood bootstraps (left) and the 50% majority rule percentage of support for clades given by Bayesian posterior probabilities from one million generation MCMC analysis (right). cDNA trees were rooted using as outgroup the most basal genera, Ascophyllum and Silvetia, determined as basal according to phylogenetic re-analysis of Fucaceae ITS data using its sister families as outgroup [23] (see details in Methods section for the analyses performed based on [23] and Additional file 2 for the corresponding phylogenetic reconstruction).
Figure 2Bayesian dating of Fucaceae diversification. Simplified Bayesian dated phylogenetic reconstruction using the 13 coding loci. Node ages in million years (Myr) with their 95% HPD interval for both expansion growth (violet bars) and Yule speciation (cyan bars) models correspond to the time scale at the bottom of the Figure. Polytomies within species were collapsed for clarity, extracting the most divergent individuals (= leaf) from the Bayesian dating of Fucaceae diversification (for full tree see Additional file 4) Each paleogeographic reconstruction is placed at the estimated age (reproduced with permission of Dr. R. Blakey). Temperature graph shows paleoclimate reconstructions according to Zachos et al. ([40]; Paleocene to Miocene), Lisiecki et al. ([41]; Pliocene to Pleistocene) and Petit et al. ([39], Holocene) (reproduced with permission of Dr. R.A. Rohde). The ages and their correlation to the names on the geological timescale are based on Gradstein et al. [91]. Recent history of the Bering Strait is shown with the estimated and hypothesized openings [18,20].
Tests of mating system evolution hypotheses
| 6 | 0.000 | 0.289 | 0.398 | 0.000 | 0.441 | 0.524 | -48.299 | 108.597 | ||
| 4 | 0.000 | 0.350 | -48.519 | 105.040 | · | |||||
| 4 | 0.364 | 0.000 | -48.997 | 106.000 | · | |||||
| 4 | 0.086 | - | -54.358 | 114.720 | * | |||||
| 4 | - | 0.073 | -52.686 | 111.370 | ** | |||||
| 3 | -49.261 | 104.522 | · | |||||||
| 4 | 0.758 | 0.538 | -49.068 | 106.135 | · | |||||
| Significance codes: 0 < *** < 0.001 < ** < 0.01 < * < 0.05 < · < 0.1 < NS < 1 | ||||||||||
Speciation (λ), extinction (μ) and transition (q) rates between the two states of the mating system character (0, dioecious; 1, hermaphroditic). Complete asymmetric model and different scenarios of state-independent and state-dependent diversification (rates constrained to be equal), and unidirectional and bidirectional transitions were tested: 1) asymmetric model; 2) asymmetric speciation or state-independent extinction and transition rates; 3) asymmetric extinction or state-independent speciation and transition rates; 4) Source (dioecious)- sink system or state-independent diversification rates and transition from hermaphroditic to dioecious state constrained to 0; 5) Source (hermaphroditic)- sink system or state-independent diversification rates and transition from dioecious to hermaphroditic state constrained to 0; 6) symmetric parameters or MK1 model; 7) Sink-sink system or MK2 model [81-84,86]. Log-likelihood, Akaike information criteria (AIC) and log-likelihood ratio test (P) are also provided for comparison between models.
Figure 3Mapping character evolution. Mapping character evolution for mating system (dioecious vs. hermaphroditic) on the simplified Bayesian dated phylogenetic reconstruction (see Figure 2 and methods section), where scaled likelihood of each character state is represented as pie graphics on the nodes [80].
Tests of biogeographical hypotheses
| 7 | 0.195 | 0.019 | 1.225 | 0.049 | 0.000 | 0.070 | 0.000 | -46.828 | 107.656 | ||
| 5 | 0.164 | 0.020 | 1.225 | -48.775 | 107.550 | NS | |||||
| 5 | 1.225 | 0.058 | 0.029 | -51.580 | 113.160 | ** | |||||
| 4 | 1.225 | -51.636 | 111.270 | ** | |||||||
| 5 | 1.225 | 0.075 | 0.000 | -50.172 | 110.340 | * | |||||
| 2 | - | - | 0.032 | 0.000 | -13.25 | - | - | ||||
| 2 | - | - | 0.010 | 0.061 | -16.45 | - | - | ||||
Speciation (s), extinction (x) and dispersal (d) rates between the two biogeographical regions on either side of the Bering Strait (A, Pacific Ocean; B, Atlantic Ocean, including most of the Arctic). Complete asymmetric model and different scenarios of state-independent and state-dependent diversification (rates constrained to be equal), and unidirectional and bidirectional dispersal were tested: 1) asymmetric model; 2) asymmetric speciation, state-independent extinction and dispersal rates; 3) asymmetric extinction, state-independent speciation and dispersal rates; 4) symmetric parameters; 7) Sink-sink system [86]. Log-likelihood, Akaike information criteria (AIC) and log-likelihood ratio test (P) are also provided for comparison between models. Dispersal and local extinction parameters estimated by DEC models are also shown [88,89].
Figure 4Mapping character evolution. Mapping character evolution for biogeographic range, where scaled likelihood of each character state is represented as pie graphics on the nodes (a) [80]. Ancestral range subdivision/inheritance biogeographic scenarios, where color on branches shows hypothesised scenario (b) [88,89]; unsolved branch-scenarios are coloured in red but then, scaled likelihood meaning either side of Bering Strait, thus Arctic and Atlantic vs. Pacific is provided. Character evolution is traced on the simplified Bayesian dated phylogenetic reconstruction (see Figure 2 and methods section). Note that F. distichus was analysed as either Atlantic and Pacific.