Molecular phylogeny of diplomonads and enteromonads based on SSU rRNA, alpha-tubulin and HSP90 genes: Implications for the evolutionary history of the double karyomastigont of diplomonads

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fornicata is a relatively recently established group of protists that includes the diplokaryotic diplomonads (which have two similar nuclei per cell), and the monokaryotic enteromonads, retortamonads and <it>Carpediemonas</it>, with the more typical one nucleus per cell. The monophyly of the group was confirmed by molecular phylogenetic studies, but neither the internal phylogeny nor its position on the eukaryotic tree has been clearly resolved.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Here we have introduced data for three genes (SSU rRNA, α-tubulin and HSP90) with a wide taxonomic sampling of Fornicata, including ten isolates of enteromonads, representing the genera <it>Trimitus </it>and <it>Enteromonas</it>, and a new undescribed enteromonad genus. The diplomonad sequences formed two main clades in individual gene and combined gene analyses, with <it>Giardia </it>(and <it>Octomitus</it>) on one side of the basal divergence and <it>Spironucleus</it>, <it>Hexamita </it>and <it>Trepomonas </it>on the other. Contrary to earlier evolutionary scenarios, none of the studied enteromonads appeared basal to diplokaryotic diplomonads. Instead, the enteromonad isolates were all robustly situated within the second of the two diplomonad clades. Furthermore, our analyses suggested that enteromonads do not constitute a monophyletic group, and enteromonad monophyly was statistically rejected in 'approximately unbiased' tests of the combined gene data.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We suggest that all higher taxa intended to unite multiple enteromonad genera be abandoned, that <it>Trimitus </it>and <it>Enteromonas </it>be considered as part of Hexamitinae, and that the term 'enteromonads' be used in a strictly utilitarian sense. Our result suggests either that the diplokaryotic condition characteristic of diplomonads arose several times independently, or that the monokaryotic cell of enteromonads originated several times independently by secondary reduction from the diplokaryotic state. Both scenarios are evolutionarily complex. More comparative data on the similarity of the genomes of the two nuclei of diplomonads will be necessary to resolve which evolutionary scenario is more probable.</p

Revisions to the Classification, Nomenclature, and Diversity of Eukaryotes

This revision of the classification of eukaryotes follows that of Adl et al., 2012 [J. Euk. Microbiol. 59(5)] and retains an emphasis on protists. Changes since have improved the resolution of many nodes in phylogenetic analyses. For some clades even families are being clearly resolved. As we had predicted, environmental sampling in the intervening years has massively increased the genetic information at hand. Consequently, we have discovered novel clades, exciting new genera, and uncovered a massive species level diversity beyond the morphological species descriptions. Several clades known from environmental samples only have found their home. Sampling soils, deeper marine waters, and the deep sea will continue to fill us with surprises. The main changes in this revision are the confirmation that eukaryotes form at least two domains, the loss of monophyly in the Exavata, robust support for the Haptista and Cryptista. We provide suggested primer sets for DNA sequences from environmental samples that are effective for each clade. We have provided a guide to trophic functional guilds in an appendix, to facilitate the interpretation of environmental samples. This revision of the classification of eukaryotes updates that of the International Society of Protistologists (Adl et al., 2012). Since then, there has been a massive increase in DNA sequence information of phylogenetic relevance from environmental samples. We now have a much better sense of the undescribed biodiversity in our environment (Pawlowski et al., 2012; de Vargas et al., 2015). While significant, it still remains a partial estimation as several continents and soils in general are poorly sampled, and the deeper ocean is hard to reach. This new data clarified phylogenetic relationships and the new information is incorporated in this revision