A brief guide to phylogenetic software.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Phylogeny↗
Biomedical subjects
D J Eernisse
Publications and source records attributed to D J Eernisse.
Taxonomic congruence versus total evidence, and amniote phylogeny inferred from fossils, molecules, and morphology.
Taxonomic congruence and total evidence are competing paradigms in phylogenetic inference. Taxonomic congruence focuses on deriving a consensus from the results obtained from separately analyzed data sets, whereas total evidence uses character congruence in the search for the best-fitting hypothesis for all of the available character evidence. Explicit or implicit use of taxonomic congruence is usually employed when an investigator either has both molecular and morphological data sets or has different gene-, rRNA-, or protein-sequence data sets available. Indeed, a taxonomic congruence rationale is frequently used as the basis for exploring classes of data, thus allowing comparison between the phylogenetic signal emerging from a particular data set and those of other such classes. Problematic aspects of employing the taxonomic congruence approach include the potentially misleading and arbitrary choices of both a consensus method and the division of characters into subsets. If the goal of an analysis is to provide the best estimate of genealogy afforded by the available character evidence, then taxonomic congruence is substantially more arbitrary than a total evidence approach. The theoretical advantages of phylogenetic estimates based on total evidence are argued in the present study and are illustrated with an example of amniote relationships. We report conflicting results from total evidence and taxonomic congruence approaches, with analyses of previously reported data from both fossil and living amniotes and from both morphology and molecules, the latter including available 18S rRNA, 28S rRNA, and protein sequences. We conclude that a more highly resolved and robust phylogenetic hypothesis of amniotes, the traditional one, emerges when a total evidence approach is employed.
Animals↗
DNA Translator and Aligner: HyperCard utilities to aid phylogenetic analysis of molecules.
DNA Translator and Aligner are molecular phylogenetics HyperCard stacks for Macintosh computers. They manipulate sequence data to provide graphical gene mapping, conversions, translations and manual multiple-sequence alignment editing. DNA Translator is able to convert documented GenBank or EMBL documented sequences into linearized, rescalable gene maps whose gene sequences are extractable by clicking on the corresponding map button or by selection from a scrolling list. Provided gene maps, complete with extractable sequences, consist of nine metazoan, one yeast, and one ciliate mitochondrial DNAs and three green plant chloroplast DNAs. Single or multiple sequences can be manipulated to aid in phylogenetic analysis. Sequences can be translated between nucleic acids and proteins in either direction with flexible support of alternate genetic codes and ambiguous nucleotide symbols. Multiple aligned sequence output from diverse sources can be converted to Nexus, Hennig86 or PHYLIP format for subsequent phylogenetic analysis. Input or output alignments can be examined with Aligner, a convenient accessory stack included in the DNA Translator package. Aligner is an editor for the manual alignment of up to 100 sequences that toggles between display of matched characters and normal unmatched sequences. DNA Translator also generates graphic displays of amino acid coding and codon usage frequency relative to all other, or only synonymous, codons for approximately 70 select organism-organelle combinations. Codon usage data is compatible with spreadsheet or UWGCG formats for incorporation of additional molecules of interest. The complete package is available via anonymous ftp and is free for non-commercial uses.
Amino Acid Sequence↗
Animal phylogeny and the ancestry of bilaterians: inferences from morphology and 18S rDNA gene sequences.
Insight into the origin and early evolution of the animal phyla requires an understanding of how animal groups are related to one another. Thus, we set out to explore animal phylogeny by analyzing with maximum parsimony 138 morphological characters from 40 metazoan groups, and 304 18S rDNA sequences, both separately and together. Both types of data agree that arthropods are not closely related to annelids: the former group with nematodes and other molting animals (Ecdysozoa), and the latter group with molluscs and other taxa with spiral cleavage. Furthermore, neither brachiopods nor chaetognaths group with deuterostomes; brachiopods are allied with the molluscs and annelids (Lophotrochozoa), whereas chaetognaths are allied with the ecdysozoans. The major discordance between the two types of data concerns the rooting of the bilaterians, and the bilaterian sister-taxon. Morphology suggests that the root is between deuterostomes and protostomes, with ctenophores the bilaterian sister-group, whereas 18S rDNA suggests that the root is within the Lophotrochozoa with acoel flatworms and gnathostomulids as basal bilaterians, and with cnidarians the bilaterian sister-group. We suggest that this basal position of acoels and gnathostomulids is artifactal because for 1,000 replicate phylogenetic analyses with one random sequence as outgroup, the majority root with an acoel flatworm or gnathostomulid as the basal ingroup lineage. When these problematic taxa are eliminated from the matrix, the combined analysis suggests that the root lies between the deuterostomes and protostomes, and Ctenophora is the bilaterian sister-group. We suggest that because chaetognaths and lophophorates, taxa traditionally allied with deuterostomes, occupy basal positions within their respective protostomian clades, deuterostomy most likely represents a suite of characters plesiomorphic for bilaterians.
Animals↗