What is the relationship within the family Lamnidae

Özet: Beyaz köpek balığı, 2 mako, porbeagle ve Salmon türü köpek balıklarını kapsayan Lamnidae.familyası içerisindeki ilişki çok net değildir. Bu familyanın kendi içerisindeki sınıflandırmasına yönelik pekçok farklı hipotezler üretilmiştir. Bu çalışma, Lamnidae familyası içindeki ilişkilere yönelik yeterli bir cevap bulabilmek amacı ile tüm Lamnidae türlerini ve Alopidae ve Odontaspididae ailesinden 2 harici örnek kullanılarak mitokondrial cyt b geni ile yapılmıştır. Hem DNA hemde AA prsimony analizlerinde 2 mako türü monofiletik grub olarak elde edilmiştir. Bu gruba Naylor'ın sonucuna uygun olarak, 1 analizde makoların bağlı olduğu Isurus cinsinin kardeş cinsi olan beyaz köpek balığı katılırken, AA analizi sonucunda porbeagle-beyaz köpek balığı ile 2 mako cinsi bir arada grub oluşturmakta. Isuruslar bu analizde monofiltretik grub halinde iken Lamna cinsi monofiltretik değildir. Bu sonuç Compagno'nun önerisi ve Martin'in buluşu ile aynıdır.

Lamnidae familyası içindeki ilişki

Abstract: Uncertainties remain about the relationship within the family Lamnidae, which includes the white shark, 2 makos, the porbeagle, and salmon shark. Several alternative hypotheses have been suggested related to the Lamnidae phylogeny. The aim of this study was to find an accurate answer to the family Lamnidae interrelationship. To that extend, the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene was studied in all the Lamnidae species and 2 outgroups froni the families Alopiidae and Odontaspididae. The monophyly of 2 makos were obtained from both DNA and amino acid (AA) parsimony analysis. Based on our analysis, first the white shark joins this group, which is a sister taxon to the genus Isurus (makos), as reported by Naylor. In the AA parsimony analysis, the 2 makos and porbeagle-white shark branches come together as the monophyletfc family Isurus, but not Lamna. These results agree with Compagno's suggestion and Martin's findings.

PDF

___

1. McDiarmid M. Shark attack. Parrogon Books Limited. Bristol, UK; 1996.
2. Naylor GJP, Martin AP, Mattison EG et al. Interrelationships of Lamniform sharks: Testing phylogenetic hypothesis with sequence data. In: Kocher TD, Stepien CA. ed. Molecular systematics of fishes. Academic Press Inc. California, USA; 1997: pp. 199-218.
3. Castro JI. The Sharks of the North American Waters. Texas A&M University Press. College Station; 1996.
4. Compagno LJV. Interrelationship of living Elasmobranchs. J Linn Soc London Zool 53: 15-61, 1973.
5. Compagno LJV. Phylogenetic relationship of living shark and rays. Am Zool 17:303-322, 1977.
6. Compagno LJV. Sharks of the order Carcharhiniformes. Princeton University Press. Princeton, USA; 1988.
7. Compagno LJV. Relationships of the megamouth shark, Megachasma pelagios (Lamniformes: Megachasmidae), with comments on its feeding habits. NOAA Tech Rep NMFS 90: 357- 379, 1990.
8. Long DJ, Waggoner BM. Evolutionary relationships of the white shark: A phylogeny of Lamniform sharks based on dental morphology. In: Klimley AP, Ainley DG. eds. Great white shark, the biology of Carcharodon carcharias. Academic Press, Jnc. California, USA; 1996: pp. 37-47.
9. Martin AP. Systematics of the Lamnidae and the origination time of Carchorodon carcharias inferred from the comparative analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences. In: Klimley AP, Ainley DG. eds. Great white shark, the biology of Carcharodon carcharias. Academic Press, Inc. California. USA; 1996: pp. 49-53.
10. Maisey JG. Relationship of the megamouth shark, Megachasma. Copeia 228-231, 1985.
11. Martin AP, Naylor GJP. Independent origins of filter-feeding in Megamouth and Basking shark (order Lamniformes) inferred from phylogenetic analysis of cytochrome b gene sequences. In: Yano K, Morrisey JF, Yabumoto Y et al., eds. Biology of the Megamouth shark. Tokyo University Press, Tokyo, Japan; 1997: pp. 39-50.
12. Martin AP. Mitochondrial DNA sequence evolution in sharks: Rates, patterns, and phylogenetic inferences. Mol Biol Evol 12: 1114-1123,1995.
13.Martin AP. Substitution Rates of Organelle and Nuclear Genes in Sharks: Implicating Metabolic Rate (Again). Mol Biol Evol 16: 996-1002, 1999.
14. Martin AP, Pardini AT, Noble LR et al. Conservation of a dinucleotide simple sequence repeat locus in sharks. Mol Phylogenet Evol 23: 205-213, 2002.
15. Iglesias SP, Lecointre G, Sellos DY. Extensive paraphylies within sharks of the order Carcharhiniformes inferred from nuclear and mitochondrial genes. Mol Phylogenet Evol 34: 569-83, 2005.
16. Winchell CJ, Martin AP, Mallatt J. Phylogeny of elasmobranchs based on LSU and SSU ribosomal RNA genes. Mol Phylogenet Evol 31:214-224,2004.
17. Douady CJ, Dosay M, Shivji MS et al. Molecular phylogenetic evidence refuting the hypothesis of Batoidea (rays and skates) as derived sharks. Mol Phylogenet Evol 26: 215-221, 2003.
18. Löpez JA, Ryburn JA, Fedrigo O et al. Phylogeny of sharks of the family Triakidae (Carcharhiniformes) and its implications for the evolution of carcharhiniform placental viviparity. Mol Phylogenet Evol 40: 50-60, 2006.
19. Compagno LJV. Sharks of the world. FAO species catalog. Vol. 4, pt. 1. Hexanchiniformes to Lamniformes. FAO Fish synop FAO, Rome; 1984.
20. Cabot EL, Beckenbach AT. Simultaneous editing of multiple nucleic acid and protein sequences with ESEE. Comput Appl Biosci 5:233-234,1989.
21. Felsenstein J. PHYLIP: Phylogeny inference package. Version 3.5c. Distributed by the author, University of Washington, Seattle; 1993.
22. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39: 783-791, 1985.