Structural analysis of polarizing indels: an emerging consensus on the root of the tree of life

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The root of the tree of life has been a holy grail ever since Darwin first used the tree as a metaphor for evolution. New methods seek to narrow down the location of the root by excluding it from branches of the tree of life. This is...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bourne Philip E, Valas Ruben E
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2009-08-01
Series:Biology Direct
Online Access:http://www.biology-direct.com/content/4/1/30
id doaj-9ff8fd84c8c84198abd5b08d2035315d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9ff8fd84c8c84198abd5b08d2035315d2020-11-24T21:42:56ZengBMCBiology Direct1745-61502009-08-01413010.1186/1745-6150-4-30Structural analysis of polarizing indels: an emerging consensus on the root of the tree of lifeBourne Philip EValas Ruben E<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The root of the tree of life has been a holy grail ever since Darwin first used the tree as a metaphor for evolution. New methods seek to narrow down the location of the root by excluding it from branches of the tree of life. This is done by finding traits that must be derived, and excluding the root from the taxa those traits cover. However the two most comprehensive attempts at this strategy, performed by Cavalier-Smith and Lake <it>et al</it>., have excluded each other's rootings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The indel polarizations of Lake <it>et al</it>. rely on high quality alignments between paralogs that diverged before the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). Therefore, sequence alignment artifacts may skew their conclusions. We have reviewed their data using protein structure information where available. Several of the conclusions are quite different when viewed in the light of structure which is conserved over longer evolutionary time scales than sequence. We argue there is no polarization that excludes the root from all Gram-negatives, and that polarizations robustly exclude the root from the Archaea.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We conclude that there is no contradiction between the polarization datasets. The combination of these datasets excludes the root from every possible position except near the Chloroflexi.</p> <p>Reviewers</p> <p>This article was reviewed by Greg Fournier (nominated by J. Peter Gogarten), Purificación López-García, and Eugene Koonin.</p> http://www.biology-direct.com/content/4/1/30
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Bourne Philip E
Valas Ruben E
spellingShingle Bourne Philip E
Valas Ruben E
Structural analysis of polarizing indels: an emerging consensus on the root of the tree of life
Biology Direct
author_facet Bourne Philip E
Valas Ruben E
author_sort Bourne Philip E
title Structural analysis of polarizing indels: an emerging consensus on the root of the tree of life
title_short Structural analysis of polarizing indels: an emerging consensus on the root of the tree of life
title_full Structural analysis of polarizing indels: an emerging consensus on the root of the tree of life
title_fullStr Structural analysis of polarizing indels: an emerging consensus on the root of the tree of life
title_full_unstemmed Structural analysis of polarizing indels: an emerging consensus on the root of the tree of life
title_sort structural analysis of polarizing indels: an emerging consensus on the root of the tree of life
publisher BMC
series Biology Direct
issn 1745-6150
publishDate 2009-08-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The root of the tree of life has been a holy grail ever since Darwin first used the tree as a metaphor for evolution. New methods seek to narrow down the location of the root by excluding it from branches of the tree of life. This is done by finding traits that must be derived, and excluding the root from the taxa those traits cover. However the two most comprehensive attempts at this strategy, performed by Cavalier-Smith and Lake <it>et al</it>., have excluded each other's rootings.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The indel polarizations of Lake <it>et al</it>. rely on high quality alignments between paralogs that diverged before the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). Therefore, sequence alignment artifacts may skew their conclusions. We have reviewed their data using protein structure information where available. Several of the conclusions are quite different when viewed in the light of structure which is conserved over longer evolutionary time scales than sequence. We argue there is no polarization that excludes the root from all Gram-negatives, and that polarizations robustly exclude the root from the Archaea.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We conclude that there is no contradiction between the polarization datasets. The combination of these datasets excludes the root from every possible position except near the Chloroflexi.</p> <p>Reviewers</p> <p>This article was reviewed by Greg Fournier (nominated by J. Peter Gogarten), Purificación López-García, and Eugene Koonin.</p>
url http://www.biology-direct.com/content/4/1/30
work_keys_str_mv AT bournephilipe structuralanalysisofpolarizingindelsanemergingconsensusontherootofthetreeoflife
AT valasrubene structuralanalysisofpolarizingindelsanemergingconsensusontherootofthetreeoflife
_version_ 1725916245083029504