ArticleSystematic biology2010
Broadly sampled multigene analyses yield a well-resolved eukaryotic tree of life.
Article in Systematic biology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
89 citing papers in PubMed, 232 citations in OpenAlex.
- A protein interactome for the last eukaryotic common ancestor illuminates the biochemical basis of modern genetic diseases.Cell genomics · 2026Article
- Article
- Ancient eukaryotic protein interactions illuminate modern genetic traits and disorders.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Mismatch Repair Protein Msh2 Is Necessary for Macronuclear Stability and Micronuclear Division inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Maturases and Group II Introns in the Mitochondrial Genomes of the Deepest Jakobid Branch.Genome biology and evolution · 2023Article
- New insights on the evolutionary relationships between the major lineages of Amoebozoa.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Six-State Amino Acid Recoding is not an Effective Strategy to Offset Compositional Heterogeneity and Saturation in Phylogenetic Analyses.Systematic biology · 2021Article
- Comparative Studies on the Polymorphism and Copy Number Variation of mtSSU rDNA in Ciliates (Protista, Ciliophora): Implications for Phylogenetic, Environmental, and Ecological Research.Microorganisms · 2020Article
- A practical implementation of large transcriptomic data analysis to resolve cryptic species diversity problems in microbial eukaryotes.BMC evolutionary biology · 2018Article
- Multigene phylogeny and cell evolution of chromist infrakingdom Rhizaria: contrasting cell organisation of sister phyla Cercozoa and Retaria.Protoplasma · 2018Article
- Combined morphological and phylogenomic re-examination of malawimonads, a critical taxon for inferring the evolutionary history of eukaryotes.Royal Society open science · 2018Article
- Genome-reconstruction for eukaryotes from complex natural microbial communities.Genome research · 2018Article
- An 18S rRNA Workflow for Characterizing Protists in Sewage, with a Focus on Zoonotic Trichomonads.Microbial ecology · 2017Article
- Evolutionary History of Chemosensory-Related Gene Families across the Arthropoda.Molecular biology and evolution · 2017Article
- Heterogeneous molecular processes among the causes of how sequence similarity scores can fail to recapitulate phylogeny.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2017Article
- Embracing the gut microbiota: the new frontier for inflammatory and infectious diseases.Clinical & translational immunology · 2017Review
- Phylogenetic Resolution of Deep Eukaryotic and Fungal Relationships Using Highly Conserved Low-Copy Nuclear Genes.Genome biology and evolution · 2016Article
- The Astrobiology Primer v2.0.Astrobiology · 2016Review
- Article
29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
An accurate reconstruction of the eukaryotic tree of life is essential to identify the innovations underlying the diversity of microbial and macroscopic (e.g., plants and animals) eukaryotes. Previous work has divided eukaryotic diversity into a small number of high-level "supergroups," many of which receive strong support in phylogenomic analyses. However, the abundance of data in phylogenomic analyses can lead to highly supported but incorrect relationships due to systematic phylogenetic error. Furthermore, the paucity of major eukaryotic lineages (19 or fewer) included in these genomic studies may exaggerate systematic error and reduce power to evaluate hypotheses. Here, we use a taxon-rich strategy to assess eukaryotic relationships. We show that analyses emphasizing broad taxonomic sampling (up to 451 taxa representing 72 major lineages) combined with a moderate number of genes yield a well-resolved eukaryotic tree of life. The consistency across analyses with varying numbers of taxa (88-451) and levels of missing data (17-69%) supports the accuracy of the resulting topologies. The resulting stable topology emerges without the removal of rapidly evolving genes or taxa, a practice common to phylogenomic analyses. Several major groups are stable and strongly supported in these analyses (e.g., SAR, Rhizaria, Excavata), whereas the proposed supergroup "Chromalveolata" is rejected. Furthermore, extensive instability among photosynthetic lineages suggests the presence of systematic biases including endosymbiotic gene transfer from symbiont (nucleus or plastid) to host. Our analyses demonstrate that stable topologies of ancient evolutionary relationships can be achieved with broad taxonomic sampling and a moderate number of genes. Finally, taxon-rich analyses such as presented here provide a method for testing the accuracy of relationships that receive high bootstrap support (BS) in phylogenomic analyses and enable placement of the multitude of lineages that lack genome scale data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.