© 2004 Society of Systematic Biologists
Cytogenetics and Cladistics
1 Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire Origine, Structure et Evolution de la Biodiversité 55, rue Buffon, F75005 Paris, France
2 University of Stellenbosch, Evolutionary Genomics Group, Department of Zoology Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, South Africa; E-mail: dobigny{at}sun.ac.za
Edited by Jack Sites: Associate Editor
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Chromosomal data have been underutilized in phylogenetic investigations despite the obvious potential that cytogenetic studies have to reveal both structural and functional homologies among taxa. In large part this is associated with difficulties in scoring conventional and molecular cytogenetic information for phylogenetic analysis. The manner in which chromosomal data have been used by most authors in the past was often conceptionally flawed in terms of the methods and principles underpinning modern cladistics. We present herein a review of the different methods employed, examine their relative strengths, and then outline a simple approach that considers the chromosomal change as the character, and its presence or absence the character state. We test this using one simulated and several empirical data sets. Features that are unique to cytogenetic investigations, including B-chromosomes, heterochromatic additions/deletions, and the location and number of nucleolar organizer regions (NORs), as well as the weighting of chromosomal characters, are critically discussed with regard to their suitability for phylogenetic reconstruction. We conclude that each of these classes of data have inherent problems that limit their usefulness in phylogenetic analyses and in most of these instances, inclusion should be subject to rigorous appraisal that addresses the criterion of unequivocal homology.
Keywords: Chromosomal data; evolution; phylogenomics; phylogeny
Received July 11, 2003; Revised November 16, 2003; Accepted January 15, 2004
3 Present address: Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Department of Community Ecology, Theodor-Lieser-Str. 4, 06120 Halle, Germany.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. Salse, M. Abrouk, F. Murat, U. M. Quraishi, and C. Feuillet Improved criteria and comparative genomics tool provide new insights into grass paleogenomics Brief Bioinform, November 1, 2009; 10(6): 619 - 630. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Koehler, J. S. Cabral, W. M. Whitten, N. H. Williams, R. B. Singer, K. M. Neubig, M. Guerra, A. P. Souza, and M. d. C. E. Amaral Molecular Phylogeny of the Neotropical Genus Christensonella (Orchidaceae, Maxillariinae): Species Delimitation and Insights into Chromosome Evolution Ann. Bot., October 1, 2008; 102(4): 491 - 507. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A.T Pardini, P.C.M O'Brien, B Fu, R.K Bonde, F.F.B Elder, M.A Ferguson-Smith, F Yang, and T.J Robinson Chromosome painting among Proboscidea, Hyracoidea and Sirenia: support for Paenungulata (Afrotheria, Mammalia) but not Tethytheria Proc R Soc B, May 22, 2007; 274(1615): 1333 - 1340. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Veyrunes, G. Dobigny, F. Yang, P. C.M O'Brien, J. Catalan, T. J Robinson, and J. Britton-Davidian Phylogenomics of the genus Mus (Rodentia; Muridae): extensive genome repatterning is not restricted to the house mouse Proc R Soc B, December 7, 2006; 273(1604): 2925 - 2934. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Froenicke, M. G. Caldes, A. Graphodatsky, S. Muller, L. A. Lyons, T. J. Robinson, M. Volleth, F. Yang, and J. Wienberg Are molecular cytogenetics and bioinformatics suggesting diverging models of ancestral mammalian genomes? Genome Res., March 1, 2006; 16(3): 306 - 310. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. HASTEROK, E. WOLNY, M. HOSIAWA, M. KOWALCZYK, S. KULAK-KSIAZCZYK, T. KSIAZCZYK, W. K. HENEEN, and J. MALUSZYNSKA Comparative Analysis of rDNA Distribution in Chromosomes of Various Species of Brassicaceae Ann. Bot., February 1, 2006; 97(2): 205 - 216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|