Implications for bat evolution from two new complete mitochondrial genomes
Implications for bat evolution from two new complete mitochondrial genomes
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003850
复制
发表时间：
2001-04-01
影响因子：
10.7
通讯作者：
Penny, D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lin, YH;Penny, D
线粒体基因组可用于脊椎动物进化的定量分析。我们在此报告了巨型蝙蝠（狐蝠，Pteropus scapulatus）和小蝙蝠（新西兰长尾蝙蝠，Chalinolobus tuberculatus）的完整线粒体基因组。蝙蝠（翼手目）的进化史一直不确定，甚至该类群的单系性也受到质疑。新的序列可以解决五个问题：蝙蝠在真兽类中的位置，蝙蝠是否是单系的，小蝙蝠是否与巨型蝙蝠并系，蝙蝠起源的大致时间，以及一些食虫动物（例如鼹鼠）是否与蝙蝠形成姐妹群。为了研究这些问题，我们分析了两个数据集（单独和组合），一个包含 12 个蛋白质编码区，另一个包含 RNA（核糖体 RNA 和 tRNA 的组合）。结果是一致的，支持蝙蝠单系，并将蝙蝠置于鲸有蹄类动物（鲸鱼[鲸类]加有蹄类[食肉动物、有蹄类动物和奇蹄类动物]）附近。蝙蝠在真兽树中的位置尚不确定。解剖学证据中最常见的假设是它们与灵长类动物、飞狐猴和树鼩组成群体，形成Archonta（Szalay 1977；Novacek 1992）。然而，在牙买加果蝠完整线粒体基因组的系统发育分析中（Artibus jamaicensis；Pumo et al. 1998），它似乎与鲸类、偶蹄类、奇蹄类和食肉目等进化枝的鲸有蹄类更为密切相关。 c-myc 基因序列的系统发育分析也支持这种关系（Miyamoto、Porter 和 Goodman 2000）。最近发表的鼹鼠线粒体基因组（Talpa europaea；Mouchaty et al. 2000）将这种食虫动物置于与牙买加果蝠很接近的位置。鼹鼠和牙买加果蝠的姐妹位置可以通过添加我们的两个新的蝙蝠线粒体基因组来进一步测试。甚至微型蝙蝠和巨型蝙蝠之间的关系也不确定。根据神经解剖学，有人认为巨型蝙蝠与灵长类动物的关系比与微型蝙蝠的关系更密切（Pettigrew 1986；Pettigrew et al. 1989）。这意味着蝙蝠有双系起源，这一假设尚未得到序列数据的支持（Bennett et al. 1988；Mindel, Dick, and Baker 1991；Van Den Bussche et al. 1998），但现在可以用更长的序列（例如完整的线粒体基因组）进行测试。与假设相反
Mitochondrial genomes are useful in the quantitative analysis of vertebrate evolution. We report here the complete mitochondrial genomes for a megabat (the flying fox, Pteropus scapulatus) and a microbat (the New Zealand long-tailed bat, Chalinolobus tuberculatus). The evolutionary history of bats (chiroptera) has been uncertain, and even the monophyly of this group has been questioned. The new sequences allow five questions to be addressed: the position of bats within eutheria, whether bats are monophyletic, whether microbats are paraphyletic with respect to megabats, the approximate timing of the origin of bats, and whether some insectivores (eg, moles) form a sister group with bats. In order to examine these questions, we analyzed two data sets (both separately and combined), one with 12 protein-coding regions and the other with RNA (combined ribosomal RNAs and tRNAs). The results are congruent, support bat monophyly, and place bats close to the cetferungulates (whales [cetaceans] plus ferungulates [carnivores, ungulates, and perissodactyls]). The position of bats in the eutherian tree is uncertain. The most common assumption from anatomical evidence has been that they group with primates, flying lemurs, and tree shrews, forming the Archonta (Szalay 1977; Novacek 1992). However, in a phylogenetic analysis of the complete mitochondrial genome of the Jamaican fruit bat (Artibus jamaicensis; Pumo et al. 1998) it appeared more closely related to cetferungulates, a clade including Cetacea, Artiodactyla, Perissodactyla, and Carnivora. Phylogenetic analysis from the c-myc gene sequences also support this relationship (Miyamoto, Porter, and Goodman 2000). The recent publication of the mitochondrial genome of the mole (Talpa europaea; Mouchaty et al. 2000) placed this insectivore close to the Jamaican fruit bat. The sister position of the mole and the Jamaican fruit bat can be further tested by the addition of our two new bat mitochondrial genomes. Even the relationship between microbats and megabats is uncertain. On the basis of neuroanatomy, it has been suggested that megabats are more closely related to primates than to microbats (Pettigrew 1986; Pettigrew et al. 1989). This would imply a diphyletic origin for bats, a hypothesis which has not been supported by sequence data (Bennett et al. 1988; Mindell, Dick, and Baker 1991; Van Den Bussche et al. 1998) and can now be tested with much longer sequences, such as complete mitochondrial genomes. In contrast to the hypothesis of