18S rDNA phylogeny of Clitellata (Annelida)

The phylogeny of Clitellata was analysed using 18S rDNA sequences of a selection of species representing Hirudinida, Acanthobdellida, Branchiobdellida and 10 oligochaetous families. Eleven new 18S sequences of Capilloventridae (one), Haplotaxidae (one), Propappidae (one), Enchytraeidae (two), Lumbricidae (one), Almidae (one), Megascolecidae (two), Lumbriculidae (one), and Phreodrilidae (one) are reported and aligned together with corresponding sequences of 28 previously studied clitellate taxa. Twelve polychaete species were used as an outgroup. The analysis supports an earlier hypothesis based on morphological features that Capilloventridae represents a basal clade of Clitellata; in the 18S tree it shows a sister-group relationship to all other clitellates. The remaining clitellate taxa form a basal dichotomy, one clade containing Tubificidae (including the former 'Naididae'), Phreodrilidae, Haplotaxidae, and Propappidae, the other clade with two subgroups: (1) Lumbriculidae together with all leech-like taxa (Acanthobdellida, Branchiobdellida and Hirudinida), and (2) Enchytraeidae together with a monophyletic group of all earthworms included in the study (Lumbricidae, Almidae and Megascolecidae). These earthworms are members of the taxon Crassiclitellata, the monophyly of which is thus supported by the data. The tree also shows support for the hypothesis that the first clitellates were aquatic. The position of the single species representing Haplotaxidae is not as basal as could have been expected from earlier morphology-based conclusions about the ancestral status of this family. However, if Haplotaxidae is indeed a paraphyletic assemblage of relict taxa, a higher number of representatives will be needed to resolve its exact relationships with the other clitellates.     

Molecular phylogenetic study of the systematic position of Baikalian oligochaetes in the system Clitellata

Phylogenetic relationships within the class Clitellata were examined using nucleotide sequences of nuclear 18S ribosomal RNA gene fragments. In the analysis, the already determined sequences for the individual species representing the class members Hirudinea, Acanthobdellida, Branchiobdellida, and Oligochaeta were included. Furthermore, newly determined sequences of the thirteen representatives of the family Lumbriculidae. including 12 Baikalian endemic species, were analyzed. The hypothesis on the close relatedness of these four groups of Clitellata was supported. Leeches, branchiobdellidans, and lumbriculides form three independent parallel branches of evolution. These results were consistent with the hypothesis on the role of the family Lumbriculidae as a connecting link, or the transition form between the parasitic and free-living groups of Clitellata. At the same time, these data refute the suggestion that Lumbriculidae could be the ancestral lineage of other Oligochaeta. Moreover, polymorphic group of Baikalian lumbriculides clustered independently from the other representatives of the family, pointing to the uniqueness of the Baikalian fauna of oligochaetes, which was formed within relatively closed system of this ancient lake.     

Molecular phylogenetic study of the systematic position of Baikalian oligochaetes in Clitellata

Phylogenetic relationships within the class Clitellata were examined using partial nucleotide sequences of the nuclear 18S ribosomal RNA gene. In the analysis, the already determined sequences for the individual species representing the class members Hirudinea, Acanthobdellida, Branchiobdellida, and Oligochaeta were included. Furthermore, newly determined sequences of the thirteen representatives of the family Lumbriculidae, including 12 Baikalian endemic species, were analyzed. The hypothesis on the close relatedness of these four groups of Clitellata was supported. Leeches, branchiobdellids, and lumbriculids form three independent parallel branches of evolution. These results were consistent with the hypothesis on the role of the family Lumbriculidae as a connecting link, or the transition form between the parasitic and free-living groups of Clitellata. At the same time, these data refute the suggestion that Lumbriculidae could be the ancestral lineage of other Oligochaeta. Moreover, polymorphic group of Baikalian lumbriculids clustered independently from the other representatives of the family, pointing to the uniqueness of the Baikalian fauna of oligochaetes, which was formed within relatively closed system of this ancient lake.     

Validating Livanow: molecular data agree that leeches, Branchiobdellidans, and Acanthobdella peledina form a monophyletic group of oligochaetes.

To investigate the phylogenetic relationships of leeches, branchiobdellidans, and acanthobdellidans, whole nuclear 18S rDNA and over 650 bp of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I were acquired from 101 annelids, including 36 leeches, 18 branchiobdellidans, Acanthobdella peledina, as well as 28 oligochaetes and combined with homologous data for 17 polychaete outgroup taxa. Parsimony analysis of the combined aligned dataset supported monophyly of leeches, branchiobdellidans, and acanthobdellidans in 100% of jackknife replicates. Monophyly of the oligochaete order Lumbriculida with Acanthobdellida, Branchiobdellida, and Hirudinea was supported in 84% of jackknife replicates. These results provide support for the hypotheses that leeches and branchiobdellidans are sister groups, that acanthobdellidans are sister to them, and that together with the family Lumbriculidae they all constitute a clade within Oligochaeta. Results support synonymy of the classes Clitellata and the more commonly used Oligochaeta. Leeches branchiobdellidans, and acanthobdellidans should be regarded as orders equal to their closest relatives, the order Lumbriculida.     

Evolution of habitat preference in Clitellata (Annelida)

Clitellata (earthworms, leeches, and allies) is a clade of segmented annelid worms that comprise more than 5000 species found worldwide in many aquatic and terrestrial habitats. According to current views, the first clitellates were either aquatic (marine or freshwater) or terrestrial. To address this question further, we assessed the phylogenetic relationships among clitellates using parsimony, maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses of 175 annelid 18S ribosomal DNA sequences. We then defined two ecological characters (Habitat and Aquatic‐environment preferences) and mapped those characters on the trees from the three analyses, using parsimony character‐state reconstruction (i.e. Fitch optimization). We accommodated phylogenetic uncertainty in the character mapping by reconstructing character evolution on all the trees resulting from parsimony and maximum likelihood bootstrap analyses and, in the Bayesian inference, on the trees sampled using the Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. Our analyses revealed that an ‘aquatic’ ancestral state for clitellates is a robust result. By using alterations of coding characters and constrained analyses, we also demonstrated that the hypothesis for a terrestrial origin of clitellates is not supported. Our analyses also suggest that the most recent ancestor of clitellates originated from a freshwater environment. However, we stress the importance of adding sequences of some rare marine taxa to more rigorously assess the freshwater origin of Clitellata. © 2008 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2008, 95 , 447–464.     

Social choice,risk and determinism in water quality management

Sawyer's (1986) assignment of the Branchiobdellida to the Hirudinea is reviewed and rejected. The Clitellata is considered a subphylum of the phylum Annelida and contains the classes Oligochaeta, Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida.     

Phylogeny of oligochaetous Clitellata

Clitellata, with more than one third of all annelid species described, is briefly introduced, and an overview of the hypotheses of phylogenetic relationships among the groups traditionally referred to as oligochaetes is given. The presentation is placed in a historical context and describes the trend to move from intuitive, narrative approaches to more formal analyses of character patterns. Monophyly of the earthworms (the megadriles, or Metagynophora sensu Jamieson), or at least a major part of them (Crassiclitellata sensu Jamieson), and paraphyly of the ‘microdrile’ largely aquatic, groups are supported by both morphological and molecular data. Further, DNA sequences as well as spermatozoal ultrastructure corroborate that all leech-like taxa (Hirudinida, Acanthobdellida and Branchiobdellida) constitute a clade derived within ‘Oligochaeta’, closely related to the family Lumbriculidae. Molecular systematic studies also support relationships already identified on the basis of morphological data, e.g., the position of Naididae within Tubificidae, the position of Phreodrilidae close to, but outside, the same family, and the putative sistergroup relationship between the newly discovered Capilloventridae and the rest of Clitellata. A recent study using 18S rDNA suggests that Enchytraeidae is closely related to Metagynophora, and that these two taxa, which contain all terrestrial oligochaetous clitellates, form a clade derived from aquatic ‘microdriles’ This refutes a recent hypothesis proposing that the ancestor of Clitellata was terrestrial. To a great extent, however, the basal resolution of the oligochaetous clitellates remains unclear.     

Validating Livanow: Molecular Data Agree That Leeches, Branchiobdellidans, and Acanthobdella peledina Form a Monophyletic Group of Oligochaetes

To investigate the phylogenetic relationships of leeches, branchiobdellidans, and acanthobdellidans, whole nuclear 18S rDNA and over 650 bp of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I were acquired from 101 annelids, including 36 leeches, 18 branchiobdellidans, Acanthobdella peledina, as well as 28 oligochaetes and combined with homologous data for 17 polychaete outgroup taxa. Parsimony analysis of the combined aligned dataset supported monophyly of leeches, branchiobdellidans, and acanthobdellidans in 100% of jackknife replicates. Monophyly of the oligochaete order Lumbriculida with Acanthobdellida, Branchiobdellida, and Hirudinea was supported in 84% of jackknife replicates. These results provide support for the hypotheses that leeches and branchiobdellidans are sister groups, that acanthobdellidans are sister to them, and that together with the family Lumbriculidae they all constitute a clade within Oligochaeta. Results support synonymy of the classes Clitellata and the more commonly used Oligochaeta. Leeches branchiobdellidans, and acanthobdellidans should be regarded as orders equal to their closest relatives, the order Lumbriculida.     

Rapidly evolving lineages impede the resolution of phylogenetic relationships among Clitellata (Annelida)

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated using a data set with published and new complete or partial 18S rRNA and mtCOI gene sequences of 13 and 49 taxa representing 8 and 14 families, respectively. Three different alignments were considered for 18S, and the possible influence of departures from rate constancy among sites was evaluated by analyses using a Gamma model of rate heterogeneity. Maximum-likelihood estimates of the shape parameter alpha of the Gamma distribution were very low, whatever the alignment or the gene considered, suggesting that phylogenetic reconstructions taking into account the rate heterogeneity among sites are likely to be the most reliable. Analyzed separately, the two genes did not resolve the relationships among the Clitellata, but the consensus tree was congruent with the morphology-based relationships. Our data suggest the inclusion of the Euhirudinea, Acanthobdellida, and Branchiobdellida in the Oligochaeta and suggest the Lumbriculidae as the link between both assemblages. Although separate analyses of both genes, as well as different alignments for the 18S rRNA sequences, yielded conflicting results concerning the phylogenetic position of leeches and leech-like worms vis-à-vis the Oligochaeta, subsequent analyses using the Gamma model greatly reduced the observed inconsistencies. Our analyses show that among the Clitellata, the leeches and the leech-like and gutless worms represent significantly faster evolving lineages. It is suggested that the observed higher mutation rates may be explained by the fact that these lineages contain almost exclusively commensal and/or parasitic taxa.     

A multigene framework for polychaete phylogenetic studies

Producing a robust phylogenetic reconstruction for Polychaeta using either morphological or molecular data sets has proven very difficult. There remain many conflicts between morphological analyses and hypotheses based on DNA data, the latter principally derived from 18S rRNA sequences. For the present study a data set covering a broad range of polychaete diversity was assembled, including 38 new sequences from 21 species. Besides available 18S rRNA data, five additional gene segments were examined: the D1 and D9-10 expansion regions of 28S rRNA, histone H3, snU2 RNA and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I. Maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses were conducted.Annelida and Mollusca were reciprocally monophyletic in maximum likelihood analyses, but Polychaeta included a cephalopod in maximum parsimony analyses, and a patellogastropod in Bayesian analyses. When rooted on the Mollusca, optimal topologies from maximum likelihood analyses showed a recognisable basal group of taxa, including Oweniidae, Chaetopteridae and Amphinomidae. The six studied phyllodocidan families plus Orbiniidae (as the sister group of the scale-worms) formed the next most basal group. All analyses support the inclusion of Echiura, Clitellata and Siboglinidae within polychaetes. Bayesian analyses show Echiura as the sister group of Capitellidae, in agreement with previous 18S rRNA results, In contrast, Echiura formed the sister group to Trichobranchidae in maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony analyses.Supra-familial groupings consistently recovered within Polychaeta in the analyses are: (i) Terebellida without Ampharetidae; (ii) Scolecida (excepting Orbiniidae); (iii) Eunicidae, Lumbrineridae and Clitellata; and (iv) “Cirratuliformia” (including Sternaspidae) plus Sabellidae, Serpulidae and Spionidae.     

The phylogenetic position of the Aeolosomatidae and Parergodrilidae, two enigmatic oligochaete-like taxa of the 'Polychaeta', based on molecular data from 18S rDNA sequences

The Aeolosomatidae and the Parergodrilidae are meiofaunal Annelida showing different combinations of clitellate‐like and non‐clitellate character states. Their phylogenetic positions and their systematic status within the Annelida are still in debate. Here we attempt to infer their systematic position using 18S rDNA sequences of the aeolosomatid Aeolosoma sp. and the parergodrilid Stygocapitella subterranea and several other meiofaunal taxa such as the Dinophilidae, Polygordiidae and Saccocirridae. The data matrix was complemented by sequences from several annelid, arthropod and molluscan species. After evaluation of the phylogenetic signal the data set was analysed with maximum‐parsimony, distance and maximum‐likelihood algorithms. Sequences from selected arthropods or molluscs were chosen for outgroup comparison. The resolution of the resulting phylogenies is discussed in comparison to previous studies. The results do not unequivocally support a sister‐group relationship of Aeolosoma sp. and the Clitellata. Instead, depending on the algorithms applied, Aeolosoma clusters in various clades within the polychaetes, for instance, together with eunicidan species, the Dinophilidae, Harmothoë impar or Nereis limbata. The position of Aeolosoma sp. thus cannot be resolved on the basis of the data available. S. subterranea always falls close to a cluster comprising Scoloplos armiger, Questa paucibranchiata and Magelona mirabilis, all of which were resolved as not closely related to both Aeolosoma sp. and the Clitellata. Therefore, convergent evolution of clitellate‐like characters in S. subterranea and hence in the Parergodrilidae is suggested by our phylogenetic analysis. Moreover, the Clitellata form a monophyletic clade within the paraphyletic polychaetes.     

A molecular phylogeny of annelids

We present parsimony analyses of annelids based on the largest taxon sample and most extensive molecular data set yet assembled, with two nuclear ribosomal genes (18S rDNA and the D1 region of 28S rDNA), one nuclear protein coding‐gene (Histone H3) and one mitochondrial ribosomal gene (16S rDNA) from 217 terminal taxa. Of these, 267 sequences are newly sequenced, and the remaining were obtained from GenBank. The included taxa are based on the criteria that the taxon must have 18S rDNA or at least two other loci. Our analyses show that 68% of annelid family ranked taxa represented by more than one taxon in our study are supported by a jackknife value > 50%. In spite of the size of our data set, the phylogenetic signal in the deepest part of the tree remains weak and the majority of the currently recognized major polychaete clades (except Amphinomida and Aphroditiformia) could not be recovered. Terbelliformia is monophyletic (with the exclusion of Pectinariidae, for which only 18S data were available), whereas members of taxa such as Phyllodocida, Cirratuliformia, Sabellida and Scolecida are scattered over the trees. Clitellata is monophyletic, although Dinophilidae should possibly be included, and Clitellata has a sister group within the polychaetes. One major problem is the current lack of knowledge on the closest relatives to annelids and the position of the annelid root. We suggest that the poor resolution in the basal parts of the trees presented here may be due to lack of signal connected to incomplete data sets both in terms of terminal and gene sampling, rapid radiation events and/or uneven evolutionary rates and long‐branch attraction. © The Willi Hennig Society 2006.     

18S rDNA phylogeny of the Tubificidae (Clitellata) and its constituent taxa: dismissal of the Naididae

The phylogeny of the Tubificidae, and of most of its subfamilies and some of its genera, is revisited, on the basis of sequences of 18S ribosomal DNA in a selection of species. Forty-six new 18S sequences of Naididae (6), Tubificidae (37), Phreodrilidae (1), Lumbriculidae (1), and Enchytraeidae (1) are reported and aligned together with corresponding sequences of 21 previously studied taxa. The 18S gene of Insulodrilus bifidus provides the first molecular evidence that phreodrilids are closely related to tubificids, corroborating previous conclusions based on morphology. The data further support the monophyletic status of Tubificidae, provided that the "Naididae" is regarded a part of this family; "naidids" may not even constitute a monophyletic group. It is thus suggested that the family name Naididae is formally suppressed as a junior synonym of the Tubificidae. The 18S gene also resolves a number of relationships within the tubificids. Among the subfamilies, Tubificinae is supported, Rhyacodrilinae and Phallodrilinae are revealed as nonmonophyletic, and Limnodriloidinae remains unresolved. Most tubificid genera tested for monophyly are corroborated by the data, only one (Tubifex) is refuted, and two (Tubificoides and Limnodriloides) are unresolved from other taxa. It is concluded that it will be valuable to expand the taxonomic sampling for 18S rDNA in clitellates, and in annelids in general, as this is likely to improve the resolution at many levels. However, it will be equally important to combine the annelid 18S data with other gene sequences and nonmolecular characters, to estimate the phylogeny of these common and diverse worms with greater precision.     

A test of monophyly of the gutless Phallodrilinae (Oligochaeta, Tubificidae) and the use of a 573-bp region of the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I gene in analysis of annelid phylogeny

A 573-bp region of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) of two species of Inanidrilus Erséus and four species of Olavius Erséus (Phallodrilinae, Tubificidae) is used in a parsimony analysis together with a selection of 35 other annelids (including members of Polychaeta, Pogonophora, Aphanoneura, and the clitellate taxa Tubificidae, Enchytraeidae, Naididae, Lumbriculidae, Haplotaxidae, Lumbricidae, Criodrilidae, Branchiobdellida and Hirudinea), and with two molluscs as outgroups. The data support the monophyly of the Olavius and Inanidrilus group, with a monophyletic Inanidrilus . However, parsimony jackknife analyses show that most of the other groups are unsupported by the data set, thus revealing a large amount of homoplasy in the selected gene region. Practically no information is given of within/between family relationships except for a few, closely related species. This suggests that the analysed COI region is not useful, when used alone, for inferring higher level relationships among the annelids.     

Phylogeny of Tubificidae (Annelida, Clitellata) based on mitochondrial and nuclear sequence data

The tubificid clitellates are a common component in the freshwater bottom fauna and are also the most abundant oligochaete group in marine habitats. There are over 800 described species classified in six subfamilies; Tubificinae, Limnodriloidinae, Rhyacodrilinae, Telmatodrilinae, Phallodrilinae, and Naidinae. In this study we examine the phylogenetic relationships in Tubificidae using a combination of mitochondrial 16S rDNA and nuclear 18S rDNA sequence data. Sequences were obtained from five outgroup and 56 ingroup taxa, including five of the six subfamilies of Tubificidae. The data were analysed by maximum parsimony and Bayesian inference. The resulting tree topologies are virtually without conflict. Several associations traditionally recognized within the family Tubificidae are supported, in the Bayesian analysis including a sister group relationship between Tubificinae and Limnodriloidinae. The results also indicate that Rhyacodrilinae is polyphyletic--some of its members (Heterodrilus spp.) fall into a clade with Phallodrilinae, all other groups with Naidinae. Naidinae is also polyphyletic with two rhyacodriline genera, Monopylephorus and Ainudrilus, nested within. Most of the tubificid genera included in the study are supported as monophyletic; however, Tubifex and Limnodriloides are refuted, and Tubificoides is unresolved from other tubificine taxa.     

Molecular phylogeny of leeches: Congruence of nuclear and mitochondrial rDNA data sets and the origin of bloodsucking

Complete 18S rDNA sequences and sequences of domain III of mitochondrial 12S rDNA were obtained to assess phylogenetic relationships among major suprageneric taxa of leeches and the possibly closely related clitellate taxa Branchiobdellida and Acanthobdellida. The monophyly of the families Erpobdellidae, Piscicolidae, and Glossiphoniidae, the suborders Erpobdelliformes and Hirudiniformes, and the order Arhynchobdellida have been confirmed by parsimony and maximum likelihood phylogenetic analysis of separate and combined data sets. Both the nuclear 18S rDNA sequences and the mitochondrial 12S rDNA sequences were consistent in not supporting a monophyletic order Rhynchobdellida, represented by the families Piscicolidae and Glossiphoniidae. A topology with the Piscicolidae as the first branch in the leech tree followed by the Glossiphoniidae received the highest support in terms of taxonomic, character, and outgroup congruence. According to this topology, the putative apomorphies of the Rhynchobdellidae (e.g. the proboscis) can be parsimoniously explained as plesiomorphies already present in the ancestral leech. This common ancestor was probably a bloodsucking leech with a proboscis rather than an unspecialized ectocommensal, as suggested by previous hypotheses. During the course of leech evolution, a reduction of the proboscis could have taken place in predatory arhynchobdellid ancestors to enable swallowing of larger prey. A second gain of sanguivory by the jawed Hirudiniformes could have been facilitated by pre-adaptations to ectoparasitic blood feeding. The 18S rDNA analysis further indicates a close relationship between the clitellate groups Branchiobdellida and Acanthobdellida, although this relationship is not strongly supported.     

The sister group relationship of Aeolosomatidae and Potamodrilidae (Annelida: “Polychaeta”) — a molecular phylogenetic approach based on 18S rDNA and cytochrome oxidase I

Aeolosomatidae and Potamodrilidae are small meiofauna annelids of apparently simple organization and uncertain phylogenetic position. Potamodrilidae was regarded either as a subtaxon of Aeolosomatidae, united with them as Aphanoneura, or entirely unrelated to Aeolosomatidae. Moreover, the groups have been placed in various positions within Annelida: as sister group of Clitellata, as a highly derived clitellate taxon, or excluded from Clitellata and not closely related to them due to great morphological differences. Although molecular studies give strong support for the exclusion of these two taxa from Clitellata their questionable sister group relationship to each other has not been addressed specifically. In the present study sequences of the nuclear 18S rDNA and the mitochondrial Cytochrome Oxidase I gene were used for addressing this question. In addition to the available nuclear 18S rDNA sequences, partial sequences of Cytochrome Oxidase I of Rheomorpha neiswestnovae (Lastochkin, 1935) and Potamodrilus fluviatilis Lastochkin, 1935 along with other polychaete taxa were determined. Combined analyses of these two genes were conducted using Maximum Parsimony and Bayesian analysis. A sister group relationship of Aeolosomatidae and Potamodrilidae is significantly supported in all. As in previous studies a relationship to Clitellata is not supported but the phylogenetic position of both Aeolosomatidae and Clitellata within the polychaetes remains enigmatic.