Phylogenomic analyses of deep gastropod relationships reject Orthogastropoda

F. Zapata, Nerida Wilson, M. Howison, S.C.S. Andrade, K.M. Jörger, M. Schrödl, F.E. Goetz, G. Giribet, C.W. Dunn

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    102 Citations (Scopus)


    © 2014 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved. Gastropods are a highly diverse clade of molluscs that includes many familiar animals, such as limpets, snails, slugs and sea slugs. It is one of the most abundant groups of animals in the sea and the only molluscan lineage that has successfully colonized land. Yet the relationships among and within its constituent clades have remained in flux for over a century ofmorphological, anatomical andmolecular study. Here,we re-evaluate gastropod phylogenetic relationships by collecting new transcriptome data for 40 species and analysing themin combination with publicly available genomes and transcriptomes. Our datasets include all five main gastropod clades: Patellogastropoda, Vetigastropoda, Neritimorpha, Caenogastropoda and Heterobranchia. We use two different methods to assign orthology, subsample each of these matrices into three increasingly dense subsets, and analyse all six of these supermatrices with two different models of molecular evolution. All 12 analyses yield the same unrooted network connecting the five major gastropod lineages. This reduces deep gastropod phylogeny to three alternative rooting hypotheses. These results reject the prevalent hypothesis of gastropod phylogeny, Orthogastropoda. Our dated tree is congruentwith a possible end-Permian recovery of somegastropod clades, namely Caenogastropoda and some Heterobranchia subclades.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1-9
    JournalProceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
    Issue number1794
    Publication statusPublished - 2014

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Phylogenomic analyses of deep gastropod relationships reject Orthogastropoda'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this