Phylogenomics revives traditional views on deep animal relationships.

By Hervé Philippe, Romain Derelle, Philippe Lopez, K. Pick, C. Borchiellini, N. Boury-Esnault, J. Vacelet, E. Renard, E. Houliston, É. Quéinnec and 10 more. Current Biology, 2009

698 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Biotechnology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Paleontology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1c23d3834a1722423ac5211b549b775351d161e7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Biotechnology

1. R. Neves
2. R. Kristensen
3. Casey W. Dunn
4. G. Rouse
5. A. Hejnol
6. Gonzalo Giribet
7. G. Edgecombe
8. K. Worsaae

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. H. Brinkmann
2. Dirk Erpenbeck
3. Andrew H. Knoll
4. E. Sperling
5. Hervé Philippe
6. F. Macdonald
7. Gonzalo Giribet
8. P. Chevaldonné

In Paleontology

1. F. Macdonald
2. Gonzalo Giribet
3. G. Edgecombe
4. H. Brinkmann
5. E. Sperling
6. S. Maruyama
7. G. Halverson
8. R. Neves

Citations in the corpus

• The Multiple Origins of Complex Multicellularity (2011, background): “Whether sponges comprise a monophyletic sister group to all other animals (Figure 3) or a paraphyletic group from which other animals emerged is still debated (Phillipe et al. 2009, Sperling et al. 2009).”
• Birth and early evolution of metazoans (2014, background): “Alternatively, some workers place the acoelomorphs as the sister group of the ambulacrarians (Philippe et al., 2009).”
• A basin redox transect at the dawn of animal life (2012, background): “Whether sponges are monophyletic (Philippe et al., 2009) or paraphyletic (Sperling et al., 2009), they are certainly the sister group or grade of all other animals (Philippe et al., 2011).”
• Metabolic fingerprinting as an indicator of biodiversity: towards understanding inter-specific relationships among Homoscleromorpha sponges (2011, background): “Taxonomy of Homoscleromorpha is highly challenging and their phylogeny remains debated, because many species are devoid of skeleton (Borchiellini et al. 2004; Ereskovsky 2009a; Nichols 2005; Philippe et al. 2009).”
• Pitfalls in supermatrix phylogenomics (2017, neutral): “2009) or Porifera (Philippe et al. 2009); acoels are included within Lophotrochozoa (Dunn et al.”
• Morphology should not be forgotten in the era of genomics—a phylogenetic perspective (2015, background): “Many other analyses followed, especially re-evaluating the base of the animal tree (e.g., Lartillot and Philippe, 2008; Moroz et al., 2014; Philippe et al., 2009; Pick et al., 2010; Ryan et al., 2013), or some of its largest clades (e.”
• The new systematics of scleractinia: Integrating molecular and morphological evidence (2016, background): “Although coral molecular phylogenetic studies generally focus heavily on few mitochondrial or ribosomal markers, and whilst these have greatly improved our understanding of scleractinian phylogenetic relationships, it is now clear that to achieve higher resolution and to be able to investigate all t”
• Animal Phylogeny and Its Evolutionary Implications (2014, background): “Phylogenomic analyses that place sponges as the sister group to all other animals tend to place Ctenophora as the sister group to Cnidaria, reviving the old clade Coelenterata (Nosenko et al. 2013, Philippe et al. 2009).”
• The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution (2013, result): “2A) ( 19 ).”