Back

The phylogenetic affinities of Chaetognathifera, with considerations of systematic error and the robusticity of macrosyntenic results

Fleming, J. F.; Roberts, N. G.; Herlyn, H. F.; Ahlrichs, W.; Kocot, K.; Struck, T. H.

2026-06-08 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.06.08.730799 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Chaetognathifera, a superphylum comprising Syndermata (Rotifera including Acanthocephala), Micrognathozoa, Gnathostomulida and Chaetognatha, is a complex grouping generally recovered as the sister to all other Lophotrochozoa. However, phylogenetic relationships within this group are controversial, in part due to poor sampling, resulting in two key questions. The first is whether Gnathostomulida or Chaetognatha represent the sister group to Syndermata+Micrognathozoa. The second is the phylogenetic position of the former phylum Acanthocephala within Syndermata. Here, we present the first study of the phylogenetic affinities of Chaetognathifera with genomic representation from all major phyla, and explore the potential of macrosynteny to better understand these relationships. For this latter aspect, we also developed a new jackknifing procedure to assess the robustness of linkage groups inferred by macrosyntenic analyses. We show that the phylogenetic relationships between these clades are corroborated through a variety of gene selection and analysis methodologies. This provides clear evidence of Acanthocephala as a derived clade within Syndermata as sister to Seisonidea, and that Gnathostomulida is sister to Syndermata+Micrognathozoa, with Chaetognatha as the earliest diverging clade within Chaetognathifera. On the other hand, we found that macrosyntenic patterns cannot resolve this question. Moreover, almost all possible linkage groups involving chaetognathiferan species lack robusticity and hence, should not be considered reliable. As a consequence so far, in Chaetognathifera none of the bilaterian ancestral linkage groups can be reliably found and independent massive chromosomal rearrangements occurred. We therefore strongly suggest that studies of macrosynteny should not only assess the significance of possible linkage groups, but also the robusticity of these linkage group inferences. Furthermore, we also present a script for this purpose, which can be found at: https://github.com/JFFleming/MacrosyntenicJackknife

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.3%
2
Systematic Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.3%
3
Genome Biology and Evolution
338 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
11.8%
4
Systematic Entomology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.4%
50% of probability mass above
5
Molecular Biology and Evolution
542 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.3%
6
Evolution
225 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
7
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
8
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 38%
2.8%
9
BMC Evolutionary Biology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
10
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.9%
11
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.7%
12
Current Biology
665 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.7%
13
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
14
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
15
BMC Biology
265 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
16
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
110 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
17
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
18
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
24 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
19
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
20
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.1%
21
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
22
EvoDevo
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
23
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
72 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
25
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 45%
0.6%
26
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.6%