Phylogenetic Relationships between Prostome and Colpodean Ciliates Tested by Small Subunit rRNA Sequences

Stechmann, Alexandra; Schlegel, Martin

doi:10.1006/mpev.1997.0435

Cited by 34 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2003; Hammerschmidt et al 1996;Leipe et al 1994;Stechmann et al 1998;Wright and Lynn 1997b), our analyses confirmed the class Litostomatea, excluding the cyclotrichiids for the moment, as a monophyletic taxon. As with previous studies using SSrRNA Hammerschmidt et al 1996;Hirt et al 1995;Leipe et al, 1994;Wright and Lynn 1997a, b;Wright et al 1997) and the large subunit ribosomal RNA gene (LSrRNA, Baroin-Tourancheau et al 1992, the sister group to the litostomes could not be unambiguously resolved.…”

Section: ----------------supporting

confidence: 71%

Molecular Phylogeny of Litostome Ciliates (Ciliophora, Litostomatea) with Emphasis on Free-Living Haptorian Genera

Strüder‐Kypke

Wright

Foissner

et al. 2006

Protist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: ----------------supporting

confidence: 71%

Molecular Phylogeny of Litostome Ciliates (Ciliophora, Litostomatea) with Emphasis on Free-Living Haptorian Genera

Strüder‐Kypke

Wright

Foissner

et al. 2006

Protist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, based on electron microscopic studies of morphogenesis, it has been suggested that the prostome ciliates should be classified close to the oligohymenophoreans (Bardele, 1999;Baroin-Tourancheau et al, 1992;Fleury et al, 1992). Having been supported in some molecular phylogenetic investigations but rejected in others, the monophyly of the class Prostomatea has long been uncertain (Lynn, 2003;Stechmann et al, 1998;Strüder-Kypke et al, 2006;Wright and Colorni, 2002). In the present study, the monophyly of the class Prostomatea was not supported by the SSU trees.…”

Section: Prostome Taxacontrasting

confidence: 61%

“…Two orders have been recognized based on the position of the mouth and the presence of a brosse and toxicysts, namely Prostomatida and Prorodontida (Dragesco et al, 1974;Lynn, 2008). However, this arrangement is far from certain and the systematics of Prostomatea has been vigorously debated for several decades (Bardele, 1999;Corliss, 1979;Hiller, 1992Hiller, , 1993Lynn and Small, 2002;Stechmann et al, 1998). Availability of SSU rRNA gene sequences of morphologically identified prostomes is limited to a single order, the Prorodontida Kim et al, 2007;Stechmann et al, 1998;Wright and Colorni, 2002;Yi et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Further insights into the phylogeny of two ciliate classes Nassophorea and Prostomatea (Protista, Ciliophora)

Zhang

Fan

et al. 2014

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThe Nassophorea and Prostomatea are two of the key classes in understanding the morphological diversification and higher classification of the phylum Ciliophora. However, their phylogenetic relationships with other ciliate groups within the subphylum Intramacronucleata remain elusive. In this study, we investigated the small and large subunit (SSU and LSU) rRNA gene-based phylogeny of these groups with sequences of additional taxa including several key species. The results show that: (1) the class Nassophorea remains polyphyletic, with the microthoracids clustering with the Phyllopharyngea, whereas the nassulids represent a basal group of the CONthreeP superclade in the SSU tree; (2) the Prostomatea is not depicted as a monophyletic group in phylogenetic trees, and the monophyly of this class is marginally rejected by statistical tree topology tests; (3) the nassulid genus Parafurgasonia is more closely related to the family Colpodidiidae than to Furgasonia; (4) Paranassula, which was previously thought to be a nassulid, is phylogenetically related to the oligohymenophorean peniculids in both the SSU and LSU trees; (5) the microthoracid genus Discotricha does not group with the other microthoracids in either SSU or LSU trees; (6) the family Plagiocampidae is closely related to the prostome parasite Cryptocaryon irritans and to the family Urotrichidae in the order Prorodontida; and (7) the family Placidae, represented by Placus salinus, is sister to the family Holophryidae in the order Prorodontida. Based on the present data, we consider the genus Discotricha to be an unclassified taxon within the CONthreeP. We also propose resurrecting the order Paranassulida and classifying it within the subclass Peniculia, class Oligohymenophorea. Primary and secondary structure signatures for higher taxa within Phyllopharyngea and Nassophorea are supplied.

show abstract

“…Extraction of ciliate DNA, amplification, and cloning of ssu rRNA genes was carried out as described previously (Stechmann et al, 1998). Cloned ssu rDNA was sequenced in both directions with dye-labeled universal ssu rDNA primers (Elwood et al, 1985) and M13 forward and reverse primers.…”

Section: Extraction Of Dna Isolation Of Ssu Rrna Genes and Dna Sequmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogenetic Relationships within the Class Spirotrichea (Ciliophora) Inferred from Small Subunit rRNA Gene Sequences

Bernhard

Stechmann

Foissner

et al. 2001

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phylogenetic Relationships between Prostome and Colpodean Ciliates Tested by Small Subunit rRNA Sequences

Cited by 34 publications

References 29 publications

Molecular Phylogeny of Litostome Ciliates (Ciliophora, Litostomatea) with Emphasis on Free-Living Haptorian Genera

Molecular Phylogeny of Litostome Ciliates (Ciliophora, Litostomatea) with Emphasis on Free-Living Haptorian Genera

Further insights into the phylogeny of two ciliate classes Nassophorea and Prostomatea (Protista, Ciliophora)

Phylogenetic Relationships within the Class Spirotrichea (Ciliophora) Inferred from Small Subunit rRNA Gene Sequences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About