Methods of systematic analysis: the relative superiority of phylogenetic systematics

The superiority of cladistic methods to both synthetic and phenetic methods is briefly advanced and reviewed. Cladistics creates testable hypotheses of phylogeny that also give a highly informative summary of available data. Thus it best fits the criteria for a method for determining the general reference classification in biology. For protistologists in particular, cladistics is especially useful. Inundated by an abundance of ultrastructural, biochemical, and cell biological information, protistologists could be greatly helped by the informative way in which cladistics orders and summarizes the data. In addition to classifying protist taxa, hypotheses about the evolution of cell organelles and cellular could be scientifically formulated and tested by cladistics . Because cladistic classifications best summarize the data, they would also be best for making predictions about taxa and characters. They would, for the same reason, be the most stable. Widespread adoption of cladistic methods would serve to stabilize the now fluid state of protist taxonomy. It is for all of these reasons that such methods best suit the needs of the evolutionary protistologist .     

Models and reality: Doctrine and practicality in classification

Phenetic classification corresponds to no biological model and lacks a sound philosophical basis. Cladistics (ignoring meaningless “transformed cladistics”) assumes divergent evolution and, usually, that best estimates of phylogeny are obtained by parsimony principles, both questionable assumptions at times. It is better than phenetics since more-or-less testable hypotheses are generated, but pitfalls are many, in data selection and interpretation (as to homology), and in commensurability of units and direction of change. Above all we learn: homoplasy is rife in nature. Much bad cladistics has been done. If it is to reflect phylogeny, classification cannot be artificially stabilized, but is its only aim to express (hypothesized) cladistic patterns? And can it do that with any degree of overall assurance? Biologists are legitimately interested in defining grades as well as clades. Recognition of an unequivocal clade-grade frequently leaves a paraphyletic grade residue that cannot itself be unequivocally resolved. This is a real problem that requires attention in formal taxonomy and in applying cladistics. Primarily morphological cladistics will be increasingly supplanted by molecular (nucleotide-sequence) cladistics. The role of evolutionary taxonomy will change accordingly.     

Methods of systematic analysis: The relative superiority of phylogenetic systematics

The superiority of cladistic methods to both synthetic and phenetic methods is briefly advanced and reviewed. Cladistics creates testable hypotheses of phylogeny that also give a highly informative summary of available data. Thus it best fits the criteria for a method for determining the general reference classification in biology.For protistologists in particular, cladistics is especially useful. Inundated by an abundance of ultrastructural, biochemical, and cell biological information, protistologists could be greatly helped by the informative way in which cladistics orders and summarizes the data. In addition to classifying protist taxa, hypotheses about the evolution of cell organelles and cellular could be scientifically formulated and tested by cladistics. Because cladistic classifications best summarize the data, they would also be best for making predictions about taxa and characters. They would, for the same reason, be the most stable. Widespread adoption of cladistic methods would serve to stabilize the now fluid state of protist taxonomy. It is for all of these reasons that such methods best suit the needs of the evolutionary protistologist.     

From weird wonders to stem lineages: the second reclassification of the Burgess Shale fauna

The Burgess Shale, a set of fossil beds containing the exquisitely preserved remains of marine invertebrate organisms from shortly after the Cambrian explosion, was discovered in 1909, and first brought to widespread popular attention by Stephen Jay Gould in his 1989 bestseller Wonderful life: The Burgess Shale and the nature of history. Gould contrasted the initial interpretation of these fossils, in which they were 'shoehorned' into modern groups, with the first major reexamination begun in the 1960s, when the creatures were perceived as 'weird wonders', possessing unique body plans and unrelated to modern organisms. More recently, a third phase of Burgess Shale studies has arisen, which has not yet been historically examined. This third phase represents a revolutionary new understanding, brought about, I believe, by a change in taxonomic methodology that led to a new perception of the Burgess creatures, and a new way to comprehend their relationships with modern organisms. The adoption of cladistics, and its corollary, the stem group concept, has forged a new understanding of the Burgess Shale ... but has it also changed the questions we are allowed to ask about evolution?     

A Review on Cladistics

The theoretical bases and approaches of cladistics and some specific problems that, directly or indirectly, rely on cladistic analysis for their revolution, are outlined and discussed. Seven sections comprise this paper: a ) the philosophical foundation of cladistics; b) the theoretical tenets of cladistics; c) the operational procedure of cladisties; d) three schools of classification; e) cladistics and biogeography; f) cladistics and hybrid recognition; and g) is cladistic systematics a scientific theory ? Considerations of scientific methodology involve philosophical questions. From this point, Popper'falsificationism serves a good foundation. Popper emphasizes that all scientific knowledge is hypothetical-deductive, consisting of general statements (theories) that can never be confirmed or verified but only falsified. The theories, that can be tested most effectively, are preferable. Cladistics, aiming at generating accurately expressed and strictly testable systematic hypotheses, is well compatible with this requirement. The principles central to the cladistic theory and methodology are: the Principle of Synapomorphy; the Principle of Strict Monophyly; and the Principle of Strict Parsimony. The first requires forming nested groups by nesting statements about shared evolutionary novelties (synapomorphy) postulated from observed similarities and is the primary one. The second is mainly methodological, subject to modification and compromise. The principle of strict parsimony specifies the most preferable hypothesis (namely the one exhibiting the most congruence in the synapomorphy pattern). The operational procedure that might be followed in formulating and testing hypotheses of the synapomorphy pattern (the cladogram itself) consists of five steps. The erections of monophyletic groups, to a greater or lesser extent, rely on the hypothesis of the previous systematic studies and is the starting point for cladistic analysis. Character analysis, which focuses on character distribution and determination of the polarities, decides the reconstructed phylogeny. A detailed discussion on the methodological principles for identifying transformation sequence is presented. Many algorithms have been designated to infer the cladogram, and are basically of parsimony techniques and Compatibility techiques. The thus yielded cladograms, with their expected pattern of congruent synapomorphies, are tests of a particular hypothesis of synapomorphy and reciprocally synapomorphies are tests of cladistic hypothesis (cladogram). Such reciprocity is a strong stimulus to profound understanding on phylogenetic process and phyletic relationships. The cladogram and the Linnaean classification have the identical logic structure and the set-membership of the two can be made isomorphic. There are three principal approaches to biological classification : cladistics, phenetics and evolutionary classification. Cladistics is the determination of the branching pattern of evolution, and in the context of classification, the development of nested sets based on cladograms. Phenetics is the classification by overall similarities, without regard to evolutionary considerations. Evolutionary classification attempts to consider all meaningful aspects of phylogeny and to use these for making a classification. The last approach has been done intuitively, without explicit methods. An enumeration of their differences and a discussion on their relative merits are presented. Three theoretical approaches have been proposed for interpreting biogeographical history: the phylogenetic theory of biogeography, classical evolutionary biogeography and vicariance biogeography. The former two show some similarities in that they usually look upon biogeography in terms of centers of origin and dispersal from the centers. But the first puts a strong emphasis on the construction of hypotheses about the phylogenetic relationships of the organisms in question and the subsequent inference of their geographic relationships; the second advocates a theory which does not have a precise deductive link with phylogenetic construction and often results in wildly narratative-type hypotheses. The vicariance approach de-emphasizes the concepts of centers of origin and dispersal and attempts to analyse distribution patterns in terms of subdivision (vicariance) of ancestral biotas. The development of the theory of plate tectonics and its universal acceptance enormously stimulate biogeographers to look at the world's continents and oceans from a mobilist point, which, along with the establishment of the rigorous tool of the phylogenetic analysis (cladistics), profoundly reshapes the above three theories. Hybridization and polyploidy are outstanding features of many plant groups. But hybridization, or reticulate evolution, is inconsistent with the basic concepts of cladistics which is an ever-branching pattern. Cladists have suggested several approaches. One of them analyses all the taxa by a standard cladistic procedure and closely examines the cladograms for polytomies and character conflicts that may indicate possible hybrids. Such generated hypothesis of hybridization can be corroborated or falsified by other forms of data, such as distribution, polyploidy, karyotype and pollen fertility. There are three criteria to justify a theory to be scientific: a) whether it is a theory composed of hypotheses strictly falsifiable; b) whether it has predictive effect; and c) whether it has a explanatory value. Cladistic systematics aims at generating cladograms, which are hypotheses of the nested pattern of synapomorphy, phylogenetic process and phyletic relationships, susceptible to testing by postulated synapomorphies. The predictive effect of systematics relies on the acceptance of hypotheses of congruence about the correlation of characters, which has been well founded. For non-systematic biologists, phylogenetic classification can be used as axiom to form a preliminary and fundamental explanation.     

Two issues in archaeological phylogenetics: taxon construction and outgroup selection

Cladistics is widely used in biology and paleobiology to construct phylogenetic hypotheses, but rarely has it been applied outside those disciplines. There is, however, no reason to suppose that cladistics is not applicable to anything that evolves by cladogenesis and produces a nested hierarchy of taxa. This includes cultural phenomena such as languages and tools recovered from archaeological contexts. Two methodological issues assume primacy in attempts to extend cladistics to archaeological materials: the construction of analytical taxa and the selection of appropriate outgroups. In biology the species is the primary taxonomic unit used, irrespective of the debates that have arisen in phylogenetic theory over the nature of species. Also in biology the phylogenetic history of a group of taxa usually is well enough known that an appropriate taxon can be selected as an outgroup. No analytical unit parallel to the species exists in archaeology, and thus taxa have to be constructed specifically for phylogenetic analysis. One method of constructing taxa is paradigmatic classification, which defines classes (taxa) on the basis of co-occurring, unweighted character states. Once classes have been created, a form of occurrence seriation-an archaeological method based on the theory of cultural transmission and heritability-offers an objective basis for selecting an outgroup.     

The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics

A hierarchy is an abstract organizational model of inter-level relationships among entities. When isomorphic with nature, hierarchies are useful for organizing and manipulating our knowledge. Hierarchies have been used in biological systematics to represent several distinct, but interrelated, facets of the evolution of life with different organizational properties, and these distinctions have been confused by the rubric 'the hierarchy of life'. Evolution, as descent with modification, is inherently dualistic. The organizational structure of a hierarchy can be used to represent dualistic properties as inter-level relationships. Cladistics is monistic, with a singular focus on patterns of descent. Descent has conceptual priority over modification, but the organizational relationship is not exclusive. 'Cladistic classification' is an oxymoron because cladistics lacks the class concepts needed to construct a classification, a point recognized by those who suggest abandoning Linnaean classification in favour of a newly devised monophyletic systematization. Cladistic analysis of descent can be supplemented with an analysis of modification that provides the class concepts needed to construct an evolutionary/phylogenetic classification. When a strong monophyletic pattern of modification is detected (in addition to its monophyletic pattern of descent), the criterion of subsequent modification provides the basis for formally recognizing a certain monophyletic group at a given rank, as opposed to a group that is one node more inclusive or one node less. The criterion of subsequent modification also permits detection of strong paraphyletic patterns of modification, when they exist. By setting standards of evidence needed to recognize paraphyletic groups, one concomitandy strengthens the basis for formally recognizing selective monophyletic groups.     

CLADISTICS: WHAT'S IN A WORD?

Abstract— Cladistics has changed considerably with the availability of new methods and sources of data, and the increasing realization that cladograms are relevant to all manner of historical questions. Criticisms of, and justifications for, consensus hypotheses in phylogenetic inference are reviewed. The conclusion is overwhelmingly against taxonomic congruence which deliberately seeks consensus propositions. The total evidence approach is not so burdened. A preference for suboptimal cladograms is also critized, as is the protocol for mapping characters of special interest onto a phylogenetic hypothesis derived from other evidence. The bootstrap and jackknife resampling techniques are questioned because their underlying assumptions are violated and they are sensitive to character frequencies. These findings suggest that cladistics is being redefined in ways that contradict the practices and principles responsible for its pre-eminence in phylogenetic inference.     

Prokaryotic systematics in the genomics era

As an essential and basic biological discipline, prokaryotic systematics is entering the era of genomics. This paradigmatic shift is significant not only for understanding molecular phylogeny at the whole genome level but also in revealing the genetic or epigenetic basis that accounts for the phenotypic criteria used to classify and identify species. These developments provide an opportunity and a challenge for systematists to reanalyze the molecular mechanisms underlying the taxonomic characteristics of prokaryotes by drawing the knowledge from studies of genomics and/or functional genomics employing platform technologies and related bioinformatics tools. It is expected that taxonomic books, such as Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology may evolve into a systematics library indexed by phylogenomic information with an comprehensive understanding of prokaryotic speciation and associated increasing knowledge of biological phenomena.     

Development of the SeqCode: A proposed nomenclatural code for uncultivated prokaryotes with DNA sequences as type

Over the last fifteen years, genomics has become fully integrated into prokaryotic systematics. The genomes of most type strains have been sequenced, genome sequence similarity is widely used for delineation of species, and phylogenomic methods are commonly used for classification of higher taxonomic ranks. Additionally, environmental genomics has revealed a vast diversity of as-yet-uncultivated taxa. In response to these developments, a new code of nomenclature, the Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes Described from Sequence Data (SeqCode), has been developed over the last two years to allow naming of Archaea and Bacteria using DNA sequences as the nomenclatural types. The SeqCode also allows naming of cultured organisms, including fastidious prokaryotes that cannot be deposited into culture collections. Several simplifications relative to the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP) are implemented to make nomenclature more accessible, easier to apply and more readily communicated. By simplifying nomenclature with the goal of a unified classification, inclusive of both cultured and uncultured taxa, the SeqCode will facilitate the naming of taxa in every biome on Earth, encourage the isolation and characterization of as-yet-uncultivated taxa, and promote synergies between the ecological, environmental, physiological, biochemical, and molecular biological disciplines to more fully describe prokaryotes.     

Natural History,Microbes and Sequences: Shouldn't We Look Back Again to Organisms?

The discussion on the existence of prokaryotic species is reviewed. The demonstration that several different mechanisms of genetic exchange and recombination exist has led some to a radical rejection of the possibility of bacterial species and, in general, the applicability of traditional classification categories to the prokaryotic domains. However, in spite of intense gene traffic, prokaryotic groups are not continuously variable but form discrete clusters of phenotypically coherent, well-defined, diagnosable groups of individual organisms. Molecularization of life sciences has led to biased approaches to the issue of the origins of biodiversity, which has resulted in the increasingly extended tendency to emphasize genes and sequences and not give proper attention to organismal biology. As argued here, molecular and organismal approaches that should be seen as complementary and not opposed views of biology.     

Microbial genescapes: phyletic and functional patterns of ORF distribution among prokaryotes

We have implemented a statistically based approach to comparative genomics that allows us to define and characterize distributional patterns of conceptually translated open reading frames (ORFs) at different confidence levels based on pairwise FASTA matches. In this report, we apply this methodology to nine microbial genomes, focusing particularly on phyletic and functional patterns of ORF distribution within and between the two prokaryotic domains of life, Bacteria and Archaea. We examine patterns of presence and absence of matches, determine the universal ORF set, analyze features of genome specialization between closely related organisms, and present genomic evidence for the monophyly of Archaea. These analyses illustrate how a quantitative approach to comparative genomics can illuminate questions of fundamental biological significance.     

分支系统学简介

分支系统学是本世纪70年代以来发展起来的一个新的系统学派。本文扼要地介绍了分支系统学的创立、历史和发展,分支系统学的基本概念、特征分析法以及分支系统学的广泛应用给现代生物系统学所带来的广泛影响和冲击。     

分支系统学简介

分支系统学是本世纪70年代以来发展起来的一个新的系统学派。本文扼要地介绍了分支系统学的创立、历史和发展,分支系统学的基本概念、特征分析法以及分支系统学的广泛应用给现代生物系统学所带来广泛影响和冲击。     

New roles for model genetic organisms in understanding and treating human disease: report from the 2006 Genetics Society of America meeting

Fundamental biological knowledge and the technology to acquire it have been immeasurably advanced by past efforts to understand and manipulate the genomes of model organisms. Has the utility of bacteria, yeast, worms, flies, mice, plants, and other models now peaked and are humans poised to become the model organism of the future? The Genetics Society of America recently convened its 2006 meeting entitled "Genetic Analysis: Model Organisms to Human Biology" to examine the future role of genetic research. (Because of time limitations, the meeting was unable to cover the substantial contributions and future potential of research on model prokaryotic organisms.) In fact, the potential of model-organism-based studies has grown substantially in recent years. The genomics revolution has revealed an underlying unity between the cells and tissues of eukaryotic organisms from yeast to humans. No uniquely human biological mechanisms have yet come to light. This common evolutionary heritage makes it possible to use genetically tractable organisms to model important aspects of human medical disorders such as cancer, birth defects, neurological dysfunction, reproductive failure, malnutrition, and aging in systems amenable to rapid and powerful experimentation. Applying model systems in this way will allow us to identify common genes, proteins, and processes that underlie human medical conditions. It will allow us to systematically decipher the gene-gene and gene-environment interactions that influence complex multigenic disorders. Above all, disease models have the potential to address a growing gap between our ability to collect human genetic data and to productively interpret and apply it. If model organism research is supported with these goals in mind, we can look forward to diagnosing and treating human disease using information from multiple systems and to a medical science built on the unified history of life on earth.     

Genetic technologies for extremely thermophilic microorganisms of Sulfolobus,the only genetically tractable genus of crenarchaea

Archaea represents the third domain of life, with the information-processing machineries more closely resembling those of eukaryotes than the machineries of the bacterial counterparts but sharing metabolic pathways with organisms of Bacteria, the sister prokaryotic phylum. Archaeal organisms also possess unique features as revealed by genomics and genome comparisons and by biochemical characterization of prominent enzymes. Nevertheless, diverse genetic tools are required for in vivo experiments to verify these interesting discoveries. Considerable efforts have been devoted to the development of genetic tools for archaea ever since their discovery, and great progress has been made in the creation of archaeal genetic tools in the past decade. Versatile genetic toolboxes are now available for several archaeal models, among which Sulfolobus microorganisms are the only genus representing Crenarchaeota because all the remaining genera are from Euryarchaeota. Nevertheless, genetic tools developed for Sulfolobus are probably the most versatile among all archaeal models, and these include viral and plasmid shuttle vectors, conventional and novel genetic manipulation methods, CRISPR-based gene deletion and mutagenesis, and gene silencing, among which CRISPR tools have been reported only for Sulfolobus thus far. In this review, we summarize recent developments in all these useful genetic tools and discuss their possible application to research into archaeal biology by means of Sulfolobus models.     

化石记录的再评估

分子生物学和分支系统学的发展以及化石记录自身的局限性使得古生物地层资料在生物演化研究中的地位遭到质疑。连续的化石记录的发现肯定了化石分析的意义,数据库的建立与定量分析方法的应用为古生物学的研究增添了新生力量。     

Mobile genetic elements: the agents of open source evolution

Horizontal genomics is a new field in prokaryotic biology that is focused on the analysis of DNA sequences in prokaryotic chromosomes that seem to have originated from other prokaryotes or eukaryotes. However, it is equally important to understand the agents that effect DNA movement: plasmids, bacteriophages and transposons. Although these agents occur in all prokaryotes, comprehensive genomics of the prokaryotic mobile gene pool or 'mobilome' lags behind other genomics initiatives owing to challenges that are distinct from cellular chromosomal analysis. Recent work shows promise of improved mobile genetic element (MGE) genomics and consequent opportunities to take advantage - and avoid the dangers - of these 'natural genetic engineers'. This review describes MGEs, their properties that are important in horizontal gene transfer, and current opportunities to advance MGE genomics.