Hostname: page-component-669899f699-rg895 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T15:12:30.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulations of evolutionary radiations and their application to understanding the probability of a Cambrian explosion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Jeffrey Levinton ,
Lindsey Dubb  and
Gregory A. Wray
Jeffrey Levinton
Affiliation:
1Dept. of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook 11794
Lindsey Dubb
Affiliation:
2Dept. of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle 98195
Gregory A. Wray
Affiliation:
3Dept. of Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A molecular survey of animal phylogeny (Wray et al., 1996) recovered the presumed correct temporal order of the phylogenetic splits Protostomata-Deuterostomata, Echinodermata-Chordata, and Agnatha-Gnathostomata in studies of six of seven gene sequences. This result raised the question of how this order could be recovered if all of the phyla had appeared in a Cambrian “explosion” of less than 10 m.y., given the expected erratic nature of the molecular “clock.” We simulated trees, and molecular sequence evolution along the trees, under different evolutionary radiation scenarios, with different periods of radiation, relative to times of subsequent evolution. Simulations and phylogenetic analyses of sequences derived from a simulated “Cambrian explosion” of 10–35 million years did not allow the successful recovery of the correct tree, using neighbor-joining, maximum likelihood, or parsimony methods. Success in recovering phylogenies under a Cambrian divergence scenario (520 million years ago) did not exceed 80 percent without an extended divergence time interval of at least 100 m.y. An increased substitution rate during the initial radiation improved the ability to recover correct phylogenies, especially when the rate was 8–10 times the rate following the radiation. Our results militate against the likelihood of an Early Cambrian or slightly longer explosion of the animal phyla, as apparently supported by the fossil record. Some limitations to these conclusions are discussed.

Type
Selected Papers from the Sixth North American Paleontological Convention
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 78 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 31 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abouheif, E., Zardoya, R., and Meyer, A. 1998. Limitations of metazoan 18S rRNA sequence data: implications for reconstructing a phylogeny of the animal kingdom and inferring the reality of the Cambrian explosion. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 47:394–405.Google Scholar
Aguinaldo, A. M. A., Turbeville, J. M., Linford, L. S., Rivera, M. C., Garey, J. R., Raff, R. A., and Lake, J. A. 1997. Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods and other moulting animals. Nature, 387:489–493.Google Scholar
Ayala, F. J., Rzhetsky, A., and Ayala, F. J. 1998. Origin of the metazoan phyla: molecular clocks confirm paleontological estimates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 95:606–611.Google Scholar
Balavoine, G., and Adoutte, A. 1998. One or three Cambrian radiations? Science, 280:397–398.Google Scholar
Bowring, S. A., Grotzinger, J. P., Isachsen, C. E., Knoll, A. H., Pelechaty, S. M., and Kolosov, P. 1993. Calibrating rates of Early Cambrian evolution. Science, 261:1293–1298.Google Scholar
Bromham, L., Rambaut, A., Fortey, R., Cooper, A., and Penny, D. 1998. Testing the Cambrian explosion hypothesis using a new molecular dating technique. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 95:12386–12389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derobertis, E. M., and Sasai, Y. 1996. A common plan for dorsoventral patterning in Bilateria. Nature, 380:37–40.Google Scholar
Farris, J. S. 1970. Methods for computing Wagner trees. Systematic Zoology, 19:83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Systematic Zoology, 27:401–410.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1981. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 17:368–376.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1988. Phylogenies from molecular sequences: inference and reliability. Annual Review of Genetics, 22:521–565.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1993. Phylip (Phylogeny Inference Package) 3.5c: Distributed by the author.Google Scholar
Fortey, R. A., Briggs, D. E. G., and Wills, M. A. 1996. The Cambrian evolutionary ‘explosion’: decoupling cladogenesis from morphological disparity. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 57:13–33.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1989. Wonderful Life. New York, Norton.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1995. Of it, not above it. Nature, 377:681–682.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1998. On embryos and ancestors. Natural History, p. 20–22, 58–63.Google Scholar
Gu, X. 1998. Early metazoan divergence is about 830 million years ago. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 47:369–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halanych, K. M. 1995. The phylogenetic position of the pterobranch hemichordates based on 18S rDNA sequence data. Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution, 4:72–76.Google Scholar
Hausdorf, B. 2000. Early evolution of the bilateria. Systematic Biology, 49:130–142.Google Scholar
Hendy, M. D., and Penny, D. 1989. A framework for the quantitative study of evolutionary trees. Systematic Zoology, 38:297–309.Google Scholar
Hillis, D. M. 1996. Inferring complex phylogenies. Nature, 383:130–131.Google Scholar
Hillis, D. M., Huelsenbeck, J. P., and Swofford, D. L. 1994. Hobgoblin of phylogenetics? Nature, 369:363–364.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P., and Hillis, D. M. 1993. Success of phylogenetic methods in the four-taxon case. Systematic Biology, 42:247–264.Google Scholar
Kim, J. 1996. General inconsistency conditions for maximum parsimony. Effects of branch lengths and of increasing numbers of taxa. Systematic Biology, 45:363–374.Google Scholar
Kuhner, M. K., and Felsenstein, J. 1994. A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 11:459–468.Google Scholar
Levinton, J. S. 2001. Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution. New York, Cambridge University Press, 617 p.Google Scholar
McHugh, D. 1997. Molecular evidence that echiurans and pogonophorans are derived annelids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 94:8006–8009.Google Scholar
Nikoh, H., Iwabe, N., Kuna, K.-I., Ohno, M., Sugiyama, T., Watanabi, Y., Yasui, K., Shi-Cui, Z., Hori, K., Shimura, Y., and Miyata, T. 1997. An estimate of divergence time of Parazoa and Eumetazoa and that of Cephalochordata and Vertebrata by aldolase and triose phosphate isomerase clocks. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 45:97–106.Google Scholar
Ohno, S. 1996. The notion of the Cambrian pananimalia genome. Proceedings National Academy of Science USA, 93:8475–8478.Google Scholar
Philippe, H. C. A., and Adoutte, A. 1994. Can the Cambrian explosion be inferred through molecular phylogeny. Development, 1994(Supplement):15–25.Google Scholar
Poe, S., and Swofford, D. L. 1999. Taxon sampling revisited. Nature, 398:299–300.Google Scholar
Radinsky, L. B. 1982. Evolution of skull shape in carnivores. 3. The origin and early radiation of the modern carnivore families. Paleobiology, 8:177–195.Google Scholar
Rassmussen, B., Bengtson, S., Fletcher, I. R., and McNaughton, N. J. 2002. Discoidal impressions and trace-like fossils more than 1200 million years old. Science, 296:1112–1115.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, M. S., and Kumar, S. 2001. Incomplete taxon sampling is not a problem for phylogenetic inference. Proceedings National Academy of Science USA, 98:10751–10756.Google Scholar
Saitou, N., and Nei, M. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 4:406–425.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A., Pose, P. K., and Pfluger, F. 1998. Triploblastic animals more than 1 billion years ago: trace fossil evidence from India. Science, 282:80–83.Google Scholar
Siddall, M. 1998. Success of parsimony in the four-taxon case: long-branch repulsion by likelihood in the Farris Zone. Cladistics, 14:209–220.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W., Erwin, D. H., and Jablonski, D. 1996. Developmental evolution of metazoan body plans: the fossil evidence. Developmental Biology, 173:373–381.Google Scholar
Wang, D. Y.-C., Kumar, S., and Hedges, S. B. 1998. Divergence time estimates for the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals, and fungi. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 266:163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winnepenninkx, B., Backeljau, T., and Wachter, R. D. 1995. Phylogeny of protostome worms derived from 18S rRna. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 12:641–649.Google Scholar
Wray, G. A., Levinton, J. S., and Shapiro, L. H. 1996. Molecular evidence for deep Precambrian divergences among metazoan phyla. Science, 274:568–573.Google Scholar
Yang, Z. 1993a. Maximum likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 10:1396–1401.Google Scholar
Yang, Z. 1993b. Among-site rate variation and its impact on phylogenetic analyses. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11:367–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar