| Literature DB >> 24048154 |
Julien Lorion1, Steffen Kiel, Baptiste Faure, Masaru Kawato, Simon Y W Ho, Bruce Marshall, Shinji Tsuchida, Jun-Ichi Miyazaki, Yoshihiro Fujiwara.
Abstract
Adaptive radiations present fascinating opportunities for studying the evolutionary process. Most cases come from isolated lakes or islands, where unoccupied ecological space is filled through novel adaptations. Here, we describe an unusual example of an adaptive radiation: symbiotic mussels that colonized island-like chemosynthetic environments such as hydrothermal vents, cold seeps and sunken organic substrates on the vast deep-sea floor. Our time-calibrated molecular phylogeny suggests that the group originated and acquired sulfur-oxidizing symbionts in the Late Cretaceous, possibly while inhabiting organic substrates and long before its major radiation in the Middle Eocene to Early Oligocene. The first appearance of intracellular and methanotrophic symbionts was detected only after this major radiation. Thus, contrary to expectations, the major radiation may have not been triggered by the evolution of novel types of symbioses. We hypothesize that environmental factors, such as increased habitat availability and/or increased dispersal capabilities, sparked the radiation. Intracellular and methanotrophic symbionts were acquired in several independent lineages and marked the onset of a second wave of diversification at vents and seeps. Changes in habitat type resulted in adaptive trends in shell lengths (related to the availability of space and energy, and physiological trade-offs) and in the successive colonization of greater water depths.Entities:
Keywords: adaptive radiation; cold seep; hydrothermal vent; organic falls; phylogenetics; symbiosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24048154 PMCID: PMC3779325 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.1243
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Biol Sci ISSN: 0962-8452 Impact factor: 5.349
Figure 1.Maximum-clade-credibility Bayesian chronograms and estimates of ancestral character states. Pie charts indicate probabilities of each state at nodes discussed in the text (yellow rectangles). (a) Chronogram showing the evolution of habitat use. Grey bars are 95% HPD intervals of divergence time estimates. Black squares, circles and asterisks at nodes indicate posterior probabilities greater than or equal to 0.99, bootstrap values greater than or equal to 75% (95% for lineages highlighted in yellow), and nodes inferred in analyses of both nuclear and mitochondrial genes, respectively. The nodes that were assigned fossils to estimate divergence times of the ‘childressi’ group, and Gigantidas and Vulcanidas genera, are labelled in black circles by numbers 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Abbreviations on time scale: Palaeo, Palaeocene; Oligo, Oligocene; P, Pliocene to present; Ma, million years ago. (b) Evolution of the presence/absence of sulfur-oxidizing symbionts. (c) Evolution of the presence/absence of methanotrophic symbionts. (d) Evolution of the location of symbionts in the gill epithelium. Squares at tips of chronograms b, c and d indicate available data. (e) Evolution of shell lengths. (f) Evolution of depth use. For legibility, and because depth was discretized into nine states, a histogram was used instead of a pie chart to display probabilities at the root. Genus names are abbreviated as follows: A., Adipicola; Ba., Bathymodiolius; Be., Benthomodiolus; G., Gigantidas; I., Idas; M., Modiolus; T., Tamu.
Figure 2.Comparison between extinction-free birth–death models (H0) and models including a mass extinction at 57 Ma (H1). Analyses were performed on chronograms inferred using (a) non-parametric rate smoothing and (b) Bayesian phylogenetic analysis. Lineages-through-time plots (left) obtained from these trees are represented by solid black lines, with additional dashed black lines for the 95% HPD interval estimated from the entire distribution of sampled Bayesian trees. Red- and blue-shaded areas correspond to 95% CIs obtained by simulation under H0 and H1, respectively, and purple areas show the overlap in confidence intervals between models. Distributions of likelihood differences between both models fitted to datasets simulated under H0 (red) and H1 (blue) are given on the right. Dashed red lines represent H0's 5% rejection levels. Likelihood differences calculated from real trees are given by solid vertical black lines, with an additional 95% HPD interval for Bayesian trees (vertical black dashed lines). Ma, million years ago; Δlog(L), difference between natural logarithms of likelihood.
Figure 3.(a) Global and (b–d) character-dependent lineages-through-time plots (log-scaled) estimated from the ML tree smoothed using non-parametric rate smoothing (dashed lines) and from the Bayesian chronogram (solid lines). Shaded areas represent 95% HPD intervals estimated from the entire distribution of sampled Bayesian trees. Vent and seep lineages from figure 1a were pooled together in the habitat-dependent plot. Colour-coded groups in plots based on the location and the presence/absence of methanotrophic symbionts match the distributions of character states among taxa in figure 1d and 1c, respectively. Vertical dashed lines represent shifts of the net diversification rate estimated in the likelihood analysis of speciation and extinction rates.
Results of the likelihood analysis of speciation and extinction rates (LASER). Characteristics of each model are abbreviated as follows: RC, rate constant; RV, rate variable; L, likelihood; r1, first diversification rate; r2, second diversification rate; r3, third diversification rate; a, extinction fraction of the birth–death model (ratio extinction/speciation); xp, x-parameter from the exponential variant of the density-dependent speciation rate (DDX) model; k, k-parameter from the logistic variant of the density-dependent speciation rate (DDL) model; s1, first break in diversification rate (million years); s2, second break in diversification rate (million years); dAIC, the difference in AIC scores between the model and the overall best-fit model.
| model | parameters | type | L | AIC | dAIC | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pure birth | RC | −54.49 | 0.05 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 111.0 | 12.4 | |
| birth–death | RC | −54.44 | 0.04 | n.a. | 0.02 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 112.9 | 14.3 | |
| DDL | RV | −54.45 | 0.05 | n.a. | n.a. | 429 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 112.9 | 14.3 | |
| DDX | RV | −54.03 | 0.03 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | −0.13 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 112.1 | 13.5 | |
| Yule 2 rates | RV | −50.30 | 0.01 | 0.05 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 39.6 | n.a. | n.a. | 106.6 | 8.0 | |
| Yule 3 rates | RV | −44.29 | 0.01 | 0.17 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 41.2 | 33.8 | 0.05 | 98.6 | 0 |
Tests of correlations between characters. Model used, number of species for which data were available, criteria estimated, degrees of freedom (d.f.) and p-values are given for each pair of characters.
| model | variables | species | criterion | d.f. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pagel's test | methanotroph ∼ symbiont location | 24 | 0.001 | ||
| methanotroph ∼ habitat | 36 | 0.024 | |||
| symbiont location ∼ habitat | 24 | 0.006 | |||
| pGLS | log(size) ∼ depth | 48 | intercept: | 0 | |
| slope: | 0.640 | ||||
| 46 | 0.802 | ||||
| pAnova | log(size) ∼ habitat | 48 | 1 | 0 | |
| phylogenetic | 0 | ||||
| log(size) ∼ symbiont location | 24 | 1 | 0.005 | ||
| phylogenetic | 0.053 | ||||
| log(size) ∼ methanotroph | 36 | 1 | 0.057 | ||
| phylogenetic | 0.143 | ||||
| log(depth) ∼ symbiont location | 24 | 1 | 0.015 | ||
| phylogenetic | 0.097 | ||||
| log(depth) ∼ methanotroph | 36 | 1 | 0.018 | ||
| phylogenetic | 0.067 |
Impact of methanotrophic symbionts and symbiont location on diversification rates. Character-dependent Bisse (H1: diversification rate λ0 under state 0 and λ1 under state 1) and simple Yule (H0: global diversification rate λYule) speciation models were fitted to sampled data and patterns inferred during the Bayesian analysis. Levels of sampling bias considered are expressed as ratios and reflect estimated proportions of extant species with state 0 and 1 included in the phylogeny. Likelihood ratios (LRs) calculated between Bisse and Yule models and associated p-values (p) are given.
| dataset | methanotrophic symbionts | symbiont location | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LR | LR | |||||||||
| sampled data | 0.010 | 0.088 | 0.037 | 12.938 | 0 | 0.004 | 0.055 | 0.028 | 10.276 | 0.001 |
| sampled data, bias ∼ 0.75 : 1 | 0.012 | 0.099 | 0.041 | 12.517 | 0 | 0.003 | 0.064 | 0.031 | 9.891 | 0.002 |
| sampled data, bias ∼ 0.65 : 1 | 0.013 | 0.105 | 0.043 | 12.346 | 0 | 0.003 | 0.068 | 0.033 | 9.749 | 0.002 |
| sampled data, bias ∼ 1 : 0.75 | 0.039 | 0.010 | 0.091 | 14.312 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.057 | 0.031 | 11.562 | 0.001 |
| sampled data, bias ∼ 1 : 0.65 | 0.039 | 0.010 | 0.093 | 14.880 | 0 | 0.007 | 0.060 | 0.032 | 12.303 | 0 |
| inferred pattern | 0.022 | 0.099 | 0.043 | 14.711 | 0 | 0.021 | 0.084 | 0.043 | 8.146 | 0.004 |
| inferred pattern, bias ∼ 0.75 : 1 | 0.027 | 0.107 | 0.049 | 11.871 | 0.001 | 0.038 | 0.084 | 0.047 | 6.948 | 0.008 |
| inferred pattern, bias ∼ 0.65 : 1 | 0.030 | 0.112 | 0.052 | 10.562 | 0.001 | 0.041 | 0.084 | 0.050 | 5.928 | 0.015 |
| inferred pattern, bias ∼ 1 : 0.75 | 0.022 | 0.105 | 0.045 | 17.79 | 0 | 0.021 | 0.092 | 0.046 | 12.515 | 0 |
| inferred pattern, bias ∼ 1 : 0.65 | 0.022 | 0.107 | 0.045 | 19.315 | 0 | 0.033 | 0.110 | 0.047 | 16.696 | 0 |