Match!

Spider phylogenomics: untangling the Spider Tree of Life

Published on Feb 23, 2016in PeerJ2.35
· DOI :10.7717/peerj.1719
Nicole L. Garrison5
Estimated H-index: 5
(AMNH: American Museum of Natural History),
Juanita Rodriguez7
Estimated H-index: 7
(AMNH: American Museum of Natural History)
+ 7 AuthorsJason E. Bond30
Estimated H-index: 30
(AMNH: American Museum of Natural History)
View in Source
Abstract
Spiders (Order Araneae) are massively abundant generalist arthropod predators that are found in nearly every ecosystem on the planet and have persisted for over 380 million years. Spiders have long served as evolutionary models for studying complex mating and web spinning behaviors, key innovation and adaptive radiation hypotheses, and have been inspiration for important theories like sexual selection by female choice. Unfortunately, past major attempts to reconstruct spider phylogeny typically employing the “usual suspect” genes have been unable to produce a well-supported phylogenetic framework for the entire order. To further resolve spider evolutionary relationships we have assembled a transcriptome-based data set comprising 70 ingroup spider taxa. Using maximum likelihood and shortcut coalescence-based approaches, we analyze eight data sets, the largest of which contains 3,398 gene regions and 696,652 amino acid sites forming the largest phylogenomic analysis of spider relationships produced to date. Contrary to long held beliefs that the orb web is the crowning achievement of spider evolution, ancestral state reconstructions of web type support a phylogenetically ancient origin of the orb web, and diversification analyses show that the mostly ground-dwelling, web-less RTA clade diversified faster than orb weavers. Consistent with molecular dating estimates we report herein, this may reflect a major increase in biomass of non-flying insects during the Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution 125–90 million years ago favoring diversification of spiders that feed on cursorial rather than flying prey. Our results also have major implications for our understanding of spider systematics. Phylogenomic analyses corroborate several well-accepted high level groupings: Opisthothele, Mygalomorphae, Atypoidina, Avicularoidea, Theraphosoidina, Araneomorphae, Entelegynae, Araneoidea, the RTA clade, Dionycha and the Lycosoidea. Alternatively, our results challenge the monophyly of Eresoidea, Orbiculariae, and Deinopoidea. The composition of the major paleocribellate and neocribellate clades, the basal divisions of Araneomorphae, appear to be falsified. Traditional Haplogynae is in need of revision, as our findings appear to support the newly conceived concept of Synspermiata. The sister pairing of filistatids with hypochilids implies that some peculiar features of each family may in fact be synapomorphic for the pair. Leptonetids now are seen as a possible sister group to the Entelegynae, illustrating possible intermediates in the evolution of the more complex entelegyne genitalic condition, spinning organs and respiratory organs.
Figures & Tables
  • References (102)
  • Citations (118)
References102
Newest
#1George E. Konidaris (A.U.Th.: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki)H-Index: 8
15 CitationsSource
#1Paul A. Selden (Capital Normal University)H-Index: 29
#2Dong Ren (Capital Normal University)H-Index: 27
Last.Chungkun Shih (Capital Normal University)H-Index: 19
view all 3 authors...
9 CitationsSource
#1Matthew C. Brandley (NYU: New York University)H-Index: 22
#2Jason G. Bragg (ANU: Australian National University)H-Index: 22
Last.Craig Moritz (ANU: Australian National University)H-Index: 80
view all 9 authors...
47 CitationsSource
#1Austin Dziki (UVM: University of Vermont)H-Index: 2
#2Greta J. Binford (Lewis & Clark College)H-Index: 17
Last.Ingi Agnarsson (UVM: University of Vermont)H-Index: 37
view all 4 authors...
13 CitationsSource
#1Duane D. McKenna (U of M: University of Memphis)H-Index: 17
#2Alexander L. Wild (University of Texas at Austin)H-Index: 1
Last.Brian D. Farrell (Harvard University)H-Index: 37
view all 21 authors...
195 CitationsSource
#1Richard O. Prum (Yale University)H-Index: 47
#2Jacob S. Berv (Yale University)H-Index: 6
Last.Alan R. Lemmon (Yale University)H-Index: 30
view all 7 authors...
562 CitationsSource
#1Alexey M. Kozlov (Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies)H-Index: 12
#2Andre J. Aberer (Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies)H-Index: 15
Last.Alexandros Stamatakis (Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies)H-Index: 50
view all 3 authors...
122 CitationsSource
#1Frédéric Legendre (University of Paris)H-Index: 9
#2André Nel (University of Paris)H-Index: 88
Last.Philippe Grandcolas (University of Paris)H-Index: 28
view all 6 authors...
71 CitationsSource
#1Daniele Polotow (Instituto Butantan)H-Index: 5
#2Anthea Carmichael (California Academy of Sciences)H-Index: 3
Last.Charles E. Griswold (University of California, Berkeley)H-Index: 24
view all 3 authors...
29 CitationsSource
#1Erich D. Jarvis (HHMI: Howard Hughes Medical Institute)H-Index: 54
#2Siavash Mirarab (University of Texas at Austin)H-Index: 30
Last.Guojie Zhang (UCPH: University of Copenhagen)H-Index: 61
view all 105 authors...
886 CitationsSource
Cited By118
Newest
#1Nobuaki Kono (Keio: Keio University)H-Index: 9
#2Hiroyuki NakamuraH-Index: 20
Last.Kazuharu Arakawa (Keio: Keio University)H-Index: 23
view all 10 authors...
1 CitationsSource
#1Saoirse Foley (Yale University)H-Index: 1
#2Tim Lüddecke (Fraunhofer Society)H-Index: 2
Last.William H. Piel (Yale University)H-Index: 19
view all 11 authors...
1 CitationsSource
#1Siddharth Kulkarni (GW: George Washington University)H-Index: 2
#2Hannah M. Wood (National Museum of Natural History)H-Index: 8
Last.Gustavo Hormiga (GW: George Washington University)H-Index: 28
view all 4 authors...
Source
#1Chao Tong (UPenn: University of Pennsylvania)H-Index: 1
#2Gabriella M. Najm (University of California, Berkeley)H-Index: 1
Last.Timothy A. Linksvayer (UPenn: University of Pennsylvania)H-Index: 23
view all 5 authors...
1 CitationsSource
#1Jonas O. Wolff (Macquarie University)H-Index: 12
#2Gustavo B. Paterno (UFRN: Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte)
Last.Marie E. Herberstein (Macquarie University)H-Index: 38
view all 12 authors...
Source
#1Ligia R. Benavides (Harvard University)H-Index: 7
#2Julia G. Cosgrove (Harvard University)H-Index: 2
Last.Gonzalo Giribet (Harvard University)H-Index: 63
view all 4 authors...
Source
#1Shichang Zhang (THU: Tunghai University)H-Index: 2
#2Dakota Piorkowski (THU: Tunghai University)H-Index: 2
Last.I-Min Tso (THU: Tunghai University)H-Index: 25
view all 7 authors...
Source
#1Robert J. Kallal (GW: George Washington University)H-Index: 6
#2Andrew J. Moore (SBU: Stony Brook University)
Last.Gustavo Hormiga (GW: George Washington University)H-Index: 28
view all 3 authors...
Source
#1Peter MichalikH-Index: 16
#2Robert J. Kallal (GW: George Washington University)H-Index: 6
Last.Martín J. Ramírez (CONICET: National Scientific and Technical Research Council)H-Index: 20
view all 7 authors...
Source
Source
View next paperPhylogenomics Resolves a Spider Backbone Phylogeny and Rejects a Prevailing Paradigm for Orb Web Evolution