Sequence Alignment of 18 S Ribosomal RNA and the Basal Relationships of Adephagan Beetles : Evidence for Monophyly of Aquatic Families and the Placement of Trachypachidae

—Current hypotheses regarding family relationships in the suborder Adephaga (Coleoptera) are conicting. Here we report full-length 18S ribosomal RNA sequences of 39 adephagans and 13 outgroup taxa. Data analysis focused on the impact of sequence alignment on tree topology, using two principally different approaches. Tree alignments, which seek to minimize indels and substitutions on the tree in a single step, as implemented in an approximate procedure by the computer program POY, were contrasted with a more traditional procedure based on alignments followed by phylogenetic inference based on parsimony, likelihood, and distance analyses. Despite substantial differences between the procedures, phylogenetic conclusions regarding basal relationships within Adephaga and relationships between the four suborders of Coleoptera were broadly similar. The analysis weakly supports monophyly of Adephaga, with Polyphaga usually as its sister, and the two small suborders Myxophaga and Archostemata basal to them. In some analyses, however, Polyphaga was reconstructed as having arisen from within Hydradephaga. Adephaga generally split into two monophyletic groups, corresponding to the terrestrial Geadephaga and the aquatic Hydradephaga, as initially proposed by Crowson in 1955, consistent with a single colonization of the aquatic environment by adephagan ancestors and contradicting the recent proposition of three independent invasions. A monophyletic Hydradephaga is consistently, though not strongly, supported under most analyses, and a parametric bootstrapping test signiŽcantly rejects an hypothesis of nonmonophyly. The enigmatic Trachypachidae, which exhibit many similarities to aquatic forms but whose species are entirely terrestrial, were usually recovered as a basal lineage within Geadephaga. Strong evidence opposes the view that terrestrial trachypachids are related to the dytiscoid water beetles. [Adephaga; aquatic beetles; Coleoptera; sequence alignment; small subunit rRNA, tree alignment.] Adephaga contains more than 30,000 species or almost 10% of all the described species of Coleoptera and is traditionally grouped into 8 to 12 or more families. Numerous morphological characteristics indicate monophyly of the suborder (see Beutel, 1995), and several fundamental traits differ from those of the second large suborder, Polyphaga (Lawrence and Newton, 1982). Although relationships with the small suborders Archostemata and Myxophaga are still the subject of much debate, the division of the majority of extant beetle species into Adephaga and Polyphaga seems to reect a natural, deep-rooted divergence that few authors dispute (Crowson, 1960; KukalovaPeck and Lawrence, 1993; Lawrence and Newton, 1982). 4Present address: Department of Entomology, 411Science II Building, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011, USA. 5Corresponding author; E-mail: a.vogler@nhm.ac.uk Whereas Adephaga can be taken as a well-supported monophyletic group, relationships within Adephaga are highly contentious. Ecologically, they can be subdivided into a series of terrestrial groups, including Carabidae, Paussidae, Rhysodidae, Cicindelidae, and Trachypachidae (referred to as “Geadephaga”), and aquatic groups, including Gyrinidae, Dytiscidae, Noteridae, Hygrobiidae, Haliplidae, and Amphizoidae (“Hydradephaga”). This subdivision is ambiguous for the semiaquatic Amphizoidae and is compromised by the terrestrial Trachypachidae. Although trachypachids inhabit dry places away from open water and generally share the habits and body shape of the terrestrial Carabidae, they resemble Hydradephaga in several features generally considered to be adaptations to aquatic life. Further, the aquatic groups are ecologically and functionally heterogeneous and include species crawling on submerged vegetation feeding either on algae (Haliplidae) or on oligochaetes

[1]  D. Sankoff,et al.  Locating the vertices of a Steiner tree in arbitrary space , 1975 .

[2]  D. Hillis,et al.  Ribosomal DNA: Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetic Inference , 1991, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[3]  Martin Vingron,et al.  The Deferred Path Heuristic for the Generalized Tree Alignment Problem , 1997, J. Comput. Biol..

[4]  J. Lake,et al.  Reconstructing evolutionary trees from DNA and protein sequences: paralinear distances. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  R DeSalle,et al.  Alignment-ambiguous nucleotide sites and the exclusion of systematic data. , 1993, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[6]  M. Steel,et al.  Recovering evolutionary trees under a more realistic model of sequence evolution. , 1994, Molecular biology and evolution.

[7]  J. Huelsenbeck,et al.  A Likelihood-Ratio Test of Monophyly , 1996 .

[8]  John M. Hancock,et al.  Evolution of the secondary structures and compensatory mutations of the ribosomal RNAs of Drosophila melanogaster. , 1988, Molecular biology and evolution.

[9]  P. Hammond,et al.  Wing-folding Mechanisms of Beetles, with Special Reference to Investigations of Adephagan Phylogeny (Coleoptera) , 1979 .

[10]  J. Felsenstein Phylogenies from molecular sequences: inference and reliability. , 1988, Annual review of genetics.

[11]  D. Penny,et al.  Conserved sequence motifs, alignment, and secondary structure for the third domain of animal 12S rRNA. , 1996, Molecular biology and evolution.

[12]  John M. Hancock,et al.  Phylogenetic analysis of slippage-like sequence variation in the V4 rRNA expansion segment in tiger beetles (Cicindelidae). , 1997, Molecular biology and evolution.

[13]  D. Sankoff Minimal Mutation Trees of Sequences , 1975 .

[14]  R. Ravi,et al.  Approximation Algorithms for Multiple Sequence Alignment Under a Fixed Evolutionary Tree , 1995, CPM.

[15]  Brian D. Farrell,et al.  "Inordinate Fondness" explained: why are there So many beetles? , 1998, Science.

[16]  D. Kavanaugh A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF AMPHIZOID BEETLES (AMPHIZOIDAE: COLEOPTERA) AND THEIR PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER ADEPHAGA , 1986 .

[17]  Ward C. Wheeler,et al.  Alignment characters, dynamic programming and heuristic solutions , 1998 .

[18]  H Kishino,et al.  Freeing phylogenies from artifacts of alignment. , 1992, Molecular biology and evolution.

[19]  R. Ward Metathoracic Wing Structures as Phylogenetic Indicators in the Adephaga (Coleoptera) , 1979 .

[20]  J. Thompson,et al.  Using CLUSTAL for multiple sequence alignments. , 1996, Methods in enzymology.

[21]  A. Rodrigo,et al.  Likelihood-based tests of topologies in phylogenetics. , 2000, Systematic biology.

[22]  R. A. Crowson The natural classification of the families of coleoptera , 1955 .

[23]  J. Felsenstein Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach , 2005, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[24]  W. Wheeler OPTIMIZATION ALIGNMENT: THE END OF MULTIPLE SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT IN PHYLOGENETICS? , 1996 .

[25]  F. Zimmermann,et al.  18S Ribosomal RNA genes of insects : primary structure of the genes and molecular phylogeny of the Holometabola , 1996 .

[26]  Junhyong Kim Improving the Accuracy of Phylogenetic Estimation by Combining Different Methods , 1993 .

[27]  M. Steel Recovering a tree from the leaf colourations it generates under a Markov model , 1994 .

[28]  R. Durbin,et al.  Tree-based maximal likelihood substitution matrices and hidden Markov models , 1995, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[29]  J Hein,et al.  A new method that simultaneously aligns and reconstructs ancestral sequences for any number of homologous sequences, when the phylogeny is given. , 1989, Molecular biology and evolution.

[30]  R. T. Bell BEETLES THAT CANNOT BITE: FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY OF THE HEAD OF ADULT RHYSODINES (COLEOPTERA: CARABIDAE OR RHYSODIDAE) , 1994, The Canadian Entomologist.

[31]  H. Philippe,et al.  How good are deep phylogenetic trees? , 1998, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[32]  G. Mitchison A Probabilistic Treatment of Phylogeny and Sequence Alignment , 1999, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[33]  A. Vogler,et al.  A molecular phylogeny of the tiger beetles (Cicindelidae): congruence of mitochondrial and nuclear rDNA data sets. , 1996, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[34]  A. Paterson,et al.  Construction and characterization of a bacterial artificial chromosome library of Sorghum bicolor. , 1994, Nucleic acids research.

[35]  Y Van de Peer,et al.  Comparative analysis of more than 3000 sequences reveals the existence of two pseudoknots in area V4 of eukaryotic small subunit ribosomal RNA. , 2000, Nucleic acids research.

[36]  W C Wheeler,et al.  The Strepsiptera problem: phylogeny of the holometabolous insect orders inferred from 18S and 28S ribosomal DNA sequences and morphology. , 1997, Systematic biology.

[37]  John F. Lawrence,et al.  EVOLUTION OF THE HIND WING IN COLEOPTERA , 1993, Canadian Entomologist.

[38]  D. Sankoff,et al.  Evolution of 5S RNA and the non-randomness of base replacement. , 1973, Nature: New biology.

[39]  R. A. Crowson The Phylogeny of Coleoptera , 1960 .

[40]  D. Maddison,et al.  Phylogeny of carabid beetles as inferred from 18S ribosomal DNA (Coleoptera: Carabidae) , 1999 .

[41]  John M. Hancock,et al.  Complete sequences of the rRNA genes of Drosophila melanogaster. , 1988, Molecular biology and evolution.

[42]  R. DeSalle,et al.  Molecular Population Genetics of the Endangered Tiger Beetle Cicindela dorsalis (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae) , 1993 .

[43]  R. Beutel Phylogenetic analysis of Adephaga (Coleoptera) based on characters of the larval head , 1993 .

[44]  D. Maddison The discovery and importance of multiple islands of most , 1991 .

[45]  K. Kjer,et al.  Use of rRNA secondary structure in phylogenetic studies to identify homologous positions: an example of alignment and data presentation from the frogs. , 1995, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[46]  R. Beutel,et al.  Phylogenetic analysis of larval and adult characters of Adephaga (Coleoptera) using cladistic computer programs , 1996 .