ITZ, Division of Ecology and Evolution, Stiftung Tieraerztliche Hochschule Hannover, Germany.
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2013 Feb;66(2):551-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2012.05.028. Epub 2012 Jun 6.
The ever-lingering question: "What did the urmetazoan look like?" has not lost its charm, appeal or elusiveness for one and a half centuries. A solid amount of organismal data give what some feel is a clear answer (e.g. Placozoa are at the base of the metazoan tree of life (ToL)), but a diversity of modern molecular data gives almost as many answers as there are exemplars, and even the largest molecular data sets could not solve the question and sometimes even suggest obvious zoological nonsense. Since the problems involved in this phylogenetic conundrum encompass a wide array of analytical freedom and uncertainty it seems questionable whether a further increase in molecular data (quantity) can solve this classical deep phylogeny problem. This review thus strikes a blow for evaluating quality data (including morphological, molecule morphologies, gene arrangement, and gene loss versus gene gain data) in an appropriate manner.
一个半世纪以来,“原始后生动物长什么样?”这个问题一直萦绕不去,其魅力、吸引力和模糊性始终未减。大量的生物数据给出了一些人认为明确的答案(例如,扁形动物处于后生动物生命树的底部(ToL)),但多样化的现代分子数据给出的答案几乎和范例一样多,即使是最大的分子数据集也无法解决这个问题,有时甚至会提出明显的动物学谬论。由于这个系统发育难题涉及到一系列广泛的分析自由度和不确定性,因此进一步增加分子数据(数量)是否能解决这个经典的深层系统发育问题似乎值得怀疑。因此,这篇综述提出了以适当的方式评估高质量数据(包括形态学、分子形态学、基因排列以及基因缺失与获得数据)的问题。