Sorhannus Ulf
Department of Biology & Health Services, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, Edinboro, PA 16444, USA.
Cladistics. 2004 Oct;20(5):487-497. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2004.00034.x.
Direct optimization (DO) of 126 nuclear-encoded SSU rRNA diatom sequences was conducted. The optimal phylogeny indicated several unique relationships with respect to those recovered from a maximum likelihood (ML) analysis of an alignment based on maximizing primary and secondary structural similarity between 126 nuclear-encoded SSU rRNA diatom sequences (Medlin and Kaczmarska, 2004). Dividing diatoms into the subdivisions Coscinodiscophytina and Bacillariophytina was not supported by the DO phylogeny, due to the paraphyly of the former. The same pertains to Coscinodiscophyceae, Mediophyceae, Thalassiosira, Fragilaria and Amphora. The ordinal-level classification of the diatoms proposed by Round et al. (1990) was for the most part found to be unsupported. The DO phylogeny represented a more rigorous hypothesis than the ML tree because DO maximized character congruence during the homology testing (i.e., alignment/tree search) process whereas the non-phylogenetic similarity-based alignment used in the ML analysis did not. The above statement is supported by "controlled" parsimony analyses of 35 sequences, which strongly suggested that dissimilarities in the DO and ML tree structure were due to the specific homology testing approach used. It could not be precluded that differences in taxon sampling and the use of a dissimilar optimality criteria contributed to discrepancies in the structure of the optimal ML and DO trees.
对126个硅藻核编码的小亚基核糖体RNA(SSU rRNA)序列进行了直接优化(DO)。与基于126个硅藻核编码的SSU rRNA序列间一级和二级结构相似性最大化的比对进行的最大似然(ML)分析所得到的进化树相比,最优进化树显示出一些独特的关系(Medlin和Kaczmarska,2004)。DO进化树不支持将硅藻分为圆筛藻亚纲(Coscinodiscophytina)和杆状藻亚纲(Bacillariophytina),因为前者是并系的。这同样适用于圆筛藻科(Coscinodiscophyceae)、中肋骨条藻科(Mediophyceae)、海链藻属(Thalassiosira)、脆杆藻属(Fragilaria)和双眉藻属(Amphora)。Round等人(1990)提出的硅藻目级分类大多未得到支持。DO进化树比ML树代表了一个更严谨的假说,因为DO在同源性检验(即比对/树搜索)过程中使性状一致性最大化,而ML分析中使用的基于非系统发育相似性的比对则没有。对35个序列进行的“受控”简约分析支持了上述说法,该分析强烈表明DO树和ML树结构的差异是由于所使用的特定同源性检验方法。不能排除分类群抽样的差异和使用不同的最优性标准导致最优ML树和DO树结构存在差异。