Parasitism and mutualism in Wolbachia: what the phylogenomic trees can and cannot say |
| |
Authors: | Bordenstein Seth R Paraskevopoulos Charalampos Dunning Hotopp Julie C Sapountzis Panagiotis Lo Nathan Bandi Claudio Tettelin Hervé Werren John H Bourtzis Kostas |
| |
Affiliation: | * Josephine Bay Paul Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA Department of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Department of Environmental and Natural Resources Management, University of Ioannina, Agrinio, Greece J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, MD || Institute for Genome Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine ¶ School of Biological Sciences, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia # Dipartimento di Patologia Animale, Igiene e Sanità Pubblica Veterinaria, Università di Milano, Milano, Italy ** Department of Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY |
| |
Abstract: | Ecological and evolutionary theories predict that parasitismand mutualism are not fixed endpoints of the symbiotic spectrum.Rather, parasitism and mutualism may be host or environmentdependent, induced by the same genetic machinery, and shifteddue to selection. These models presume the existence of geneticor environmental variation that can spur incipient changes insymbiotic lifestyle. However, for obligate intracellular bacteriawhose genomes are highly reduced, studies specify that discretesymbiotic associations can be evolutionarily stable for hundredsof millions of years. Wolbachia is an inherited obligate, intracellularinfection of invertebrates containing taxa that act broadlyas both parasites in arthropods and mutualists in certain roundworms.Here, we analyze the ancestry of mutualism and parasitism inWolbachia and the evolutionary trajectory of this variationin symbiotic lifestyle with a comprehensive, phylogenomic analysis.Contrary to previous claims, we show unequivocally that thetransition in lifestyle cannot be reconstructed with currentmethods due to long-branch attraction (LBA) artifacts of thedistant Anaplasma and Ehrlichia outgroups. Despite the use of1) site-heterogenous phylogenomic methods that can overcomesystematic error, 2) a taxonomically rich set of taxa, and 3)statistical assessments of the genes, tree topologies, and modelsof evolution, we conclude that the LBA artifact is serious enoughto afflict past and recent claims including the root lies inthe middle of the Wolbachia mutualists and parasites. We showthat different inference methods yield different results andhigh bootstrap support did not equal phylogenetic accuracy.Recombination was rare among this taxonomically diverse dataset, indicating that elevated levels of recombination in Wolbachiaare restricted to specific coinfecting groups. In conclusion,we attribute the inability to root the tree to rate heterogeneitybetween the ingroup and outgroup. Site-heterogenous models ofevolution did improve the placement of aberrant taxa in theingroup phylogeny. Finally, in the unrooted topology, the distributionof parasitism and mutualism across the tree suggests that atleast two interphylum transfers shaped the origins of nematodemutualism and arthropod parasitism. We suggest that the ancestryof mutualism and parasitism is not resolvable without more suitableoutgroups or complete genome sequences from all Wolbachia supergroups. |
| |
Keywords: | endosymbiosis phylogenomics parasitism mutualism Wolbachia PhyloBayes |
本文献已被 PubMed Oxford 等数据库收录! |
|