| Literature DB >> 28894101 |
Daniela M Rossoni1, Ana Paula A Assis2, Norberto P Giannini3, Gabriel Marroig4.
Abstract
The family Phyllostomidae, which evolved in the New World during the last 30 million years, represents one of the largest and most morphologically diverse mammal families. Due to its uniquely diverse functional morphology, the phyllostomid skull is presumed to have evolved under strong directional selection; however, quantitative estimation of the strength of selection in this extraordinary lineage has not been reported. Here, we used comparative quantitative genetics approaches to elucidate the processes that drove cranial evolution in phyllostomids. We also quantified the strength of selection and explored its association with dietary transitions and specialization along the phyllostomid phylogeny. Our results suggest that natural selection was the evolutionary process responsible for cranial diversification in phyllostomid bats. Remarkably, the strongest selection in the phyllostomid phylogeny was associated with dietary specialization and the origination of novel feeding habits, suggesting that the adaptive diversification of phyllostomid bats was triggered by ecological opportunities. These findings are consistent with Simpson's quantum evolutionary model of transitions between adaptive zones. The multivariate analyses used in this study provides a powerful tool for understanding the role of evolutionary processes in shaping phenotypic diversity in any group on both micro- and macroevolutionary scales.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28894101 PMCID: PMC5593990 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-08989-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Results for regression drift test. Boldface numbers indicates regression coefficients significantly different from 1.0. The label (b), represents the slope of the regression line estimated between W-matrix and B-matrix for the regression test with the respective confidence intervals (b 95% intervals). Node labels match those of SI Appendix, Fig. S1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phyllostomidae (58) |
|
|
|
|
| 59 |
|
|
|
|
| 60 |
|
|
|
|
| 63 |
|
|
|
|
| 64 |
|
|
|
|
| Glossophaginae + Lonchorhininae (65) |
|
|
|
|
| Glossophaginae (66) |
|
|
|
|
| 67 | 5 | 159 | 1.036 | 0.881<>1.190 |
| 71 | 6 | 326 | 1.115 | 0.958<>1.273 |
| 77 | 28 | 1383 | 1.137 | 0.958<>1.315 |
| 80 | 25 | 1249 | 1.113 | 0.923<>1.303 |
| Rhinophyllinae + Stenodermatinae (83) | 22 | 1115 | 1.120 | 0.919<>1.320 |
| Stenodermatinae (84) | 21 | 1063 | 1.124 | 0.931<>1.317 |
| 85 | 20 | 1030 | 1.132 | 0.944<>1.320 |
| 86 |
|
|
|
|
| 87 | 12 | 557 | 1.176 | 0.976<>1.376 |
| 88 | 11 | 546 | 1.164 | 0.965<>1.362 |
| Subtribe Stenodermatina (89) | 8 | 410 | 0.901 | 0.715<>1.088 |
| 98 | 7 | 411 | 1.092 | 0.918<>1.266 |
| 99 | 6 | 351 | 1.038 | 0.838<>1.237 |
| Phyllostominae (104) |
|
|
|
|
| 106 | 7 | 368 | 1.185 | 0.977<>1.392 |
| 107 | 5 | 257 | 1.116 | 0.902<>1.329 |
Results for Principal Components (PC) correlation drift test. The first number indicates a specific PC and the subsequent numbers in parentheses are the PCs to which a significant correlation was found (p < 0.01). Node labels match those of SI Appendix, Fig. S1.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Phyllostomidae (58) | 1(2;3;5;6;9;10); 2(3;5;6;9;10); 3(4;5;8;9;10); 4(5;8;9;10); |
|
| 5(9;10); 6(9); 8(9;10); 9(10) | ||
| 59 | 1(2;3;5;6;9;10); 2(3;5;6;9;10); 3(4;5;8;9;10); 4(5;8;9;10); |
|
| 5(8;9;10); 6(9); 8(9;10); 9(10) | ||
| 60 | 1(2;3;5;6;9;10); 2(3;5;6;9;10); 3(4;5;8;9;10); 4(5;8;9;10); |
|
| 5(9;10); 6(9); 9(10) | ||
| 63 | 1(2;3;5;6;9;10); 2(3;5;6;9;10); 3(4;5;9;10); 4(5;9;10); |
|
| 5(9;10); 6(9); 9(10) | ||
| 64 | 1(2;4;5;6;7;8;9;10); 2(4;5;10); 3(4;5;7;9;10); 4(5;7;9;10); |
|
| 5(7;9;10); 6(8); 7(9;10); 8(9;10); 9(10) | ||
| 65 | 1(2;3;4;5;6;9;10); 2(3;4;5;6;9;10); 3(5;6); 4(5;6;9;10); |
|
| 5(6;9;10); 7(9); 9(10) | ||
| Glossophaginae (66) | 1(2;3;4;5;6;9); 2(3;4;5;6;9); 4(5;6;9); 5(6;9);6(7) |
|
| 67 | 1(2) |
|
| 71 | 1(2) |
|
| 77 | 1(2;3;5;9;10); 3(4;7;9;10); 6(7;8); 7(8); 9(10) |
|
| 80 | 1(2;3;5;9;10); 3(7;10); 4(9); 6(7;9); 7(8); 9(10) |
|
| 83 | 1(2;3;5;9); 3(10); 6(7); 8(9) |
|
| Stenodermatinae (84) | 1(2;3;8;9); 3(9); 4(10); 6(7); 8(9) |
|
| 85 | 1(2;3;8;9); 3(9); 4(10); 6(10) |
|
| 86 | 1(2;3); 3(10); 4(9); 7(8) |
|
| 87 | 1(2;6) |
|
| 88 | 1(2;6) |
|
| Subtribe Stenodermatina (89) | 1(2) |
|
| 98 | 1(2;4) |
|
| 99 | no | |
| Phyllostominae (104) | 1(2;3;4;5); 2(3;4;5); 3(4;5) |
|
| 106 | 1(3;4) |
|
| 107 | 1(3) |
|
Figure 1Magnitude of selection, estimated as the norm of the selection gradient vector, along the phylogeny proposed by Rojas[8]. The arrows indicate dietary transitions.
Figure 2Magnitude of selection, estimated as the norm of the selection gradient vector, plotted against time (Myr) in five representative clades of the Family Phyllostomidae. Skulls: Sphaeronycteris toxophyllum (obligate frugivore, Subtribe Stenodermatina), Desmodus rotundus (hematophagous, Subfamily Desmodontinae), Platalina genovensium (nectarivore, Subfamily Lonchophyllinae), Trachops cirrhosus (omnivore, Subfamily Phyllostominae) and Musonycteris harrisoni (nectarivore, Subfamily Glossophaginae).