The Phylogeny and the Evolution of Parasitic Strategies in Trematoda
Chuanyu, X.; Jakovlic, I.; Ye, T.; Song, R.; Zou, H.; Wang, G.; Li, W.; Zhang, D.
Show abstract
Trematodes are obligatory parasites that generally must transmit between hosts to complete their life cycle. They parasitize varying numbers of intermediate hosts (0, 1 or 2), but the evolutionary history of these strategies and the ancestral states remain unknown. We conducted the ancestral state reconstruction of the number of intermediate hosts using mitogenomic (Trematoda) and nuclear-genomic (Neodermata) topologies. Aspidogastrea was identified as the sister-group ("basal") to all other Trematoda using a range of approaches, so it is crucial for studying the evolutionary history of trematodes. However, there is only one transcriptome available for this lineage, and mitochondrial genomes (mitogenomes) remain unavailable. Herein, we sequenced mitogenomes of two aspidogastreans: Aspidogaster ijimai and Aspidogaster conchicola. As the ancestral state reconstruction analysis is topology-sensitive, we tested multiple phylogenetic strategies, comprising the outgroup selection, phylogenetic models, partitioning strategies, and topological constraints. These mitogenomic phylogenies exhibited pronounced topological instability, with Aspidogastrea resolved as the "basal" radiation in most, but not all, topologies. Based on our analyses, Cestoda was the optimal outgroup choice, and the "heterogeneous" CAT-GTR model in PhyloBayes was the optimal model choice. We inferred the time tree and conducted ancestral state reconstruction analyses using this "optimal" topology, as well as constrained mitogenomic and nuclear genomic topologies. Results were ambiguous for some lineages, but scenario that received the strongest support is the direct life cycle (no intermediate hosts) in the ancestors of Trematoda (proto-trematodes) and Aspidogastrea (proto-aspidogastreans), while the ancestor of Digenea (proto-digeneans) had two intermediate hosts. The inferred scenario indicates that host strategies are relatively plastic among trematodes, putatively comprising several independent host gains, and multiple host losses. We propose a timeline for these events and discuss the role that alternating sexual and asexual generations putatively played in the evolution of complex parasitic life histories in digeneans.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Phylogenomics resolves a 100-year-old debate regarding the evolutionary history of caddisflies (Insecta: Trichoptera) 96%
- Phylogenomics of Ichneumonoidea (Hymenoptera) and implications for evolution of mode of parasitism and viral endogenization 96%
- A broadly resolved molecular phylogeny of New Zealand cheilostome bryozoans as a framework for hypotheses of morphological evolution 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Phylogenomic Analysis of Protein-Coding Genes Resolves Complex Gall Wasp Relationships 96%
- The unresolved phylogenomic tree of butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera): assessing the potential causes and consequences 96%
- Historical biogeography of early diverging termite lineages (Isoptera: Teletisoptera) 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Major revisions in pancrustacean phylogeny with recommendations for resolving challenging nodes 96%
- Chromosome-aware phylogenomics of Assassin Bugs (Hemiptera: Reduvioidea) elucidates ancient gene conflict 95%
- Transoceanic voyages of drywood termites (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae) inferred from extant and extinct species 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Substantial hierarchical reductions of genetic and morphological traits in the evolution of rotiferan parasites 95%
- Genome evolution and introgression in the New Zealand mud snails Potamopyrgus estuarinus and Potamopyrgus kaitunuparaoa 94%
- Uneven missing data skews phylogenomic relationships within the lories and lorikeets 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.