Search

Phylogenetic analyses of ciliated protozoa have been increasingly relied on multigene information, which was revealed to provide more robust interpretations than single-gene information. Previous studies showed that Amphisiellidae was an extremely divergent group within the order Stichotrichida, with species widely dispersed throughout the stichotrichid assemblage, while Trachelostylidae, excluding gonostomatid species, is a monophyletic group within the order Sporadotrichida. In the present study, we provide 38 new sequences of SSU-rDNA, ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 and LSU-rDNA genes to infer phylogenetic relationships among all taxa available in Amphisiellidae and Trachelostylidae. The results indicate that: (1) Amphisiellidae is polyphyletic, with Amphisiella , Hemiamphisiella , Orthoamphisiella , Uroleptoides , and Urospinula distributing in different clades; (2) Amphisiella is separated into two clades in phylogenetic trees, corroborated by difference in cortical granule distribution. Thus, cortical granule pattern and distribution may be strong diagnostic features to divide Amphisiella species into two subgenera; (3) the monophyly of Trachelostylidae sensu Berger (2008) is strongly supported, suggesting it is a well-defined family; (4) Gonostomatidae is confirmed to be a valid family. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Although euplotida ciliates are widely used as model organisms in multiple fields of biology, details of their phylogenetic relationships remain unresolved despite a rich history of investigation with small subunit (SSU) rDNA sequences and other characters. Here, six genera in Diophrys-like complex and three other euplotid genera are sampled for SSU-rDNA, ITS1-5.8S-ITS2 and LSU-rDNA, and their phylogenies were inferred with unconstrained and constrained analyses. In general, the concatenated analyses infer more reliable, less ambiguous phylogenies with higher node support values. The following conclusions can be made: (1) four well-supported clades are consistently detected in the family Uronychiidae, forming into two subgroups, which challenge the traditional arrangement based on morphological similarities; (2) the subfamily Diophryinae is paraphyletic; (3) the monophyly of Paradiophrys and the establishment of Apodiophrys and Diophryopsis is fully supported by concatenated data; (4) Apodiophrys and Paradiophrys form independent lineages, at the subfamily level, from other Diophrys-like genera; and (5) the highly specialized Pseudodiophrys nests within Diophrys. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]