Sponges, ctenophores, and the statistical significance of syntenies

Shared fusions between ancestral chromosomal linkage groups have previously been used to support phylogenetic groupings, notably sponges with cnidarians and bilaterians to the exclusion of ctenophores, rendering ctenophores the sister group to all other animals. The linkage groups used to identify these fusions were assessed for statistical significance relative to a model of randomly shuffled genes. I argue that the method of random shuffling treated all species as equally distant from each other and so overestimated the significance of the observed linkages. I calculate alternative statistics and further argue that there are likely to be real linkage groups that are not identified as significant. If linkage groups are not supported statistically, they cannot reliably be used to identify shared derived chromosomal rearrangements, and hence phylogenetic hypotheses derived from them are suspect.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Published
2025-11-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msaf321
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Marine Sponges and Natural Products
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.70
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Sponges, ctenophores, and the statistical significance of syntenies

Richard R. Copley
3 citations
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Marine Sponges and Natural Products
3.70
article

Sponges, ctenophores, and the statistical significance of syntenies

Richard R. Copley
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Shared fusions between ancestral chromosomal linkage groups have previously been used to support phylogenetic groupings, notably sponges with cnidarians and bilaterians to the exclusion of ctenophores, rendering ctenophores the sister group to all other animals. The linkage groups used to identify these fusions were assessed for statistical significance relative to a model of randomly shuffled genes. I argue that the method of random shuffling treated all species as equally distant from each other and so overestimated the significance of the observed linkages. I calculate alternative statistics and further argue that there are likely to be real linkage groups that are not identified as significant. If linkage groups are not supported statistically, they cannot reliably be used to identify shared derived chromosomal rearrangements, and hence phylogenetic hypotheses derived from them are suspect.

Molecular Biology and EvolutionVol. 42(12)
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Sorbonne Université (FR), Laboratoire de Biologie du Développement de Villefranche-sur-Mer (FR), Institut de la Mer de Villefranche (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Marine Sponges and Natural Products
3.70
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.