Open Access

A remarkable diversity of bone-eating worms (Osedax; Siboglinidae; Annelida)

  • Robert C Vrijenhoek1Email author,
  • Shannon B Johnson1 and
  • Greg W Rouse2
BMC Biology20097:74

DOI: 10.1186/1741-7007-7-74

Received: 29 June 2009

Accepted: 10 November 2009

Published: 10 November 2009

Abstract

Background

Bone-eating Osedax worms have proved to be surprisingly diverse and widespread. Including the initial description of this genus in 2004, five species that live at depths between 25 and 3,000 m in the eastern and western Pacific and in the north Atlantic have been named to date. Here, we provide molecular and morphological evidence for 12 additional evolutionary lineages from Monterey Bay, California. To assess their phylogenetic relationships and possible status as new undescribed species, we examined DNA sequences from two mitochondrial (COI and 16S rRNA) and three nuclear genes (H3, 18S and 28S rRNA).

Results

Phylogenetic analyses identified 17 distinct evolutionary lineages. Levels of sequence divergence among the undescribed lineages were similar to those found among the named species. The 17 lineages clustered into five well-supported clades that also differed for a number of key morphological traits. Attempts to determine the evolutionary age of Osedax depended on prior assumptions about nucleotide substitution rates. According to one scenario involving a molecular clock calibrated for shallow marine invertebrates, Osedax split from its siboglinid relatives about 45 million years ago when archeocete cetaceans first appeared and then diversified during the late Oligocene and early Miocene when toothed and baleen whales appeared. Alternatively, the use of a slower clock calibrated for deep-sea annelids suggested that Osedax split from its siboglinid relatives during the Cretaceous and began to diversify during the Early Paleocene, at least 20 million years before the origin of large marine mammals.

Conclusion

To help resolve uncertainties about the evolutionary age of Osedax, we suggest that the fossilized bones from Cretaceous marine reptiles and late Oligocene cetaceans be examined for possible trace fossils left by Osedax roots. Regardless of the outcome, the present molecular evidence for strong phylogenetic concordance across five separate genes suggests that the undescribed Osedax lineages comprise evolutionarily significant units that have been separate from one another for many millions of years. These data coupled with ongoing morphological analyses provide a solid foundation for their future descriptions as new species.

Background

Osedax, a recently discovered genus of bone-eating marine worms, are proving to be far more diverse and geographically widespread than initially realized. The genus was described from two newly discovered species found on whalebones recovered from 2,893 m depth in Monterey Bay, California [1]. Subsequently, three additional species were described from depths between 30 and 3,000 m in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans [24]. Now, five additional distinct evolutionary lineages are recognized from Monterey Bay, but these putative species remain to be formally described [58]. Here we report genetic evidence for seven additional putative species. Given this unexpected diversity of Osedax worms with distinct morphologies, depth ranges and ecological characteristics, a detailed examination of their evolutionary history is warranted.

The initial description of Osedax [1] included a phylogenetic analysis that placed the new genus in the polychaete annelid family Siboglinidae, which also includes the now obsolete tubeworm phyla Vestimentifera and Pogonophora [9, 10]. As adults, all siboglinids lack a functional digestive system and rely entirely on endosymbiotic bacteria for their nutrition. The other siboglinid taxa host chemosynthetic bacteria and live in reducing marine environments such as hydrothermal vents, hydrocarbon seeps and anoxic basins. Osedax, however, are unique because they penetrate and digest bones with the aid of heterotrophic bacteriathat are housed in a complex branching root system [6, 11]. Osedax also differ because they exhibit extreme sexual dimorphism involving dwarf (paedomorphic) males that live as harems within a female's tube [1, 4, 12].

Considering DNA sequence divergence between the only two species known at the time, Rouse et al. [1] suggested that Osedax may have begun to diversify during the late Eocene, around 42 million years ago (MYA), perhaps coinciding with the origin of large oceanic cetaceans. Yet, this hypothesis must be reexamined in view of our current discoveries of far greater morphological and molecular diversity in the genus (Fig. 1). Our present goals were to better characterize the genetic differences among the five named species and to use this information as a foundation for clarifying evolutionary relationships among the 12 undescribed operational taxonomic units, OTUs (Table 1). We examined DNA sequences from five genes. Mitochondrial cytochrome-c-oxidase subunit 1 (COI) was used to assess levels of sequence diversity within and among all 17 OTUs and to provide DNA barcodes that would facilitate the identification of Osedax species in subsequent discoveries. Phylogenetic analyses were conducted independently with mitochondrial COI and 16S rRNA and with three nuclear genes, Histone-H3, 18S and 28S rRNA. A combined analysis involving all five genes provided a robust phylogeny for the genus and identified several well-supported species-groups that diversified over a relatively short time scale, though the timing of these events during either the Mesozoic or Cenozoic remains uncertain. Formal descriptions of the new species from Monterey Bay are currently underway (Rouse, in progress).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1741-7007-7-74/MediaObjects/12915_2009_Article_282_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Morphological diversity among Osedax lineages from Monterey Bay, CA. Individual whale-falls are denoted by their depths in meters: (a) O. orange collar from whale-633; (b)O. yellow-collar from whale-385; (c)O. white-collar from whale-1018; (d)O. frankpressi from whale-2893; (e)O. roseus from whale-1018; (f)O. rubiplumus from whale-2893; (g)O. spiral from whale-2893; (h)O. yellow-patch from whale-1018; (i)O. nude-palp C from whale-1018; and (j)O. nude-palp D from whale-1820. Approximate scale bars are provided in each panel.

Table 1

Characteristics of Osedax OTUs.

Taxa

Authority1

Depth (m)

Approx. Size2

Palp color

Pinnules3

Oviduct4

Roots

Museum Voucher5

O. rubiplumus

Rouse et al. 2004

1820--2893

59

brilliant red

out

long

long, branched

CASIZ 170238

O. frankpressi

Rouse et al. 2004

1820--2893

23

red with white lateral stripe

in

long

robust, lobate

CASIZ 170235

O. mucofloris

Glover et al. 2005

30--125

14

white to pink

in

long

robust, lobate

 

O. japonicus

Fujikura et al. 2006

224--250

16

pink

out

short

robust, lobate

 

O. roseus

Rouse et al. 2008

633--1820

24

bright red

out

long

long, branched

SIO-BIC A979-981

O. spiral

Braby et al. 2007

2893

25

no palps

none

absent

long thin filaments

SIO-BIC A1639

O. yellow-collar

Braby et al. 2007

383

18

red

both

long

robust, lobate

SIO-BIC A1640

O. orange-collar

Braby et al. 2007

383--1018

18

red

both

long

robust, lobate

SIO-BIC A1641

O. nude-palp-A

Jones et al. 2008

1820

25

red

none

?

?

SIO-BIC A1642

O. nude-palp-B

Jones et al. 2008

2893

25

red

none

?

?

SIO-BIC A1643

O. nude-palp-C

Rouse et al. 2009

1018

12

red

none

?

?

SIO-BIC A1644

O. nude-palp-D

this report

1018-1820

12

red

none

?

?

SIO-BIC A1645

O. nude-palp-E

this report

1018

12

red

none

?

robust, lobate

SIO-BIC A1646

O. nude-palp-F

this report

2892

18

red

none

?

robust, lobate

SIO-BIC A1647

O. white-collar

this report

1018

6

red with white stripe

both

long

robust, lobate

SIO-BIC A1648

O. yellow-patch

this report

633--1018

5

pale

both

long

robust, lobate

SIO-BIC A1649

O. green-palp

this report

1820

3

red/green

?

long

robust, lobate

SIO-BIC A1650

S. brattstromi

Webb 1964

600

40

red

none

absent

none

 

1Authority and date of species description, or reference to first report in literature if species is undescribed.

2Maximum length of truck and crown (mm) when preserved.

3Orientation of pinnules if present: in = inward; out = outward; both = inward & outward; none = no pinnules.

4Extension of oviduct beyond trunk.

5Abbreviations: CASIZ, California Academy of Sciences Invertebrate Zoology collection; SIO-BIC, The Scripps Institutionof Oceanography Benthic Invertebrates Collection.

Results

We examined DNA sequences from five genes (Table 2). Substitution models were estimated separately for each gene. The percentage GC content was lower in the mitochondrial genes (33.9 - 40.2%) than in the nuclear genes (47.8 - 50.2%). The two protein-coding genes, COI and H3, exhibited the highest sequence divergence. Ratios of transitions to transversions were nearly one, and ratios of synonymous to non-synonymous substitutions were comparable for COI and H3. For each gene, the sequences were partitioned by codon position, and substitution parameters were estimated separately for each position. Indels were found in all three of the rRNA genes. On average, the lengths of indels and numbers of distinct haplotypes were similar. Ratios of transitions to transversions were about one-half for the three ribosomal genes.
Table 2

Characterization of DNA sequences and the substitution models used to correct for saturation in the Bayesian analyses.

DNA

Length

Mean % divergence1

% GC content

Ts:Tv2

  

Model

Protein-coding

    

Synonomous3

Nonsynonymous

 

   mt COI

1005

17.0

41.0

1.304

259.42

94.58

GTR+SS

   nuc H3

371

13.9

48.8

1.075

222.23

71.77

Sym+SS

Ribosomal

    

Indels4

Size5

 

   mt 16S

506

11.1

32.6

0.527

3

1.0

GTR+I+G

   nuc 18S

1644

5.9

48.0

0.526

5

1.18

GTR

   nuc 28S

400

8.6

47.4

0.584

4

1.14

GTR+I+G

1 Uncorrected pairwise sequence divergence.

2 Ratio of transitions to transversions.

3 Protein coding genes: synonymous substitutions vs. non-synonymous.

4 Ribosomal genes: the number of distinct haplotypes that differed for indels (insertion/deletion).

5 Average length in base pairs of indels.

Phylogenetic analyses

We initially conducted separate phylogenetic analyses for each gene. Altogether 83 COI sequences from Osedax clustered into 17 evolutionary lineages (Figure 2a). Multiple COI haplotypes were included, when possible, to represent the sequence divergence among (D) versus that found within (π) each lineage (Table 3). Only one O. japonicus sequence was available from GenBank, and to date we have collected only single individuals of O. nude-palp-F and O. nude-palp-B. The mean pairwise D values among the Osedax OTUs ranged from 8.4 to 24.3%. The smallest pairwise D value, obtained for O. yellow-collar versus O. orange-collar, was an order-of-magnitude greater than the largest π value observed within these OTUs (0.82%). COI transitions began to saturate after about 12% divergence, but transversions were not saturated and many of them resulted in amino acid substitutions (Table 2).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1741-7007-7-74/MediaObjects/12915_2009_Article_282_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Bayesian phylogenetic analyses of Osedax OTUs for portions of five genes: ( a ) mitochondrial COI ; ( b ) 16S rRNA; ( c ) 18S rRNA; ( d ) Histone- H3 ; and ( e ) 28S rRNA. The black triangles in a represent the maximum depth and breadth of sequence diversity observed among multiple individuals (sample sizes in parentheses following OTU designations). The small numerals represent Bayesian Posterior Probabilities (BPP) expressed as percent, * = 100.

Table 3

COI sequence divergence (K2P corrected) within (π in italics on diagonal) and among (D on lower left) the Osedax OTUs.

 

OTU

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1

O. rubiplumus

0.0051

                

2

O. frankpressi

0.1934

0.0034

               

3

O. roseus

0.1573

0.1836

0.0047

              

4

O. white-collar

0.1957

0.1985

0.2048

0.0017

             

5

O. pinnules

0.2136

0.2131

0.2159

0.2350

0.0070

            

6

O. green-palp

0.1795

0.1869

0.1859

0.2124

0.1952

0.0020

           

7

O. yellow-collar

0.1896

0.1963

0.1831

0.1870

0.1897

0.2073

0.0048

          

8

O. orange-collar

0.1838

0.2018

0.1844

0.1821

0.2018

0.2042

0.0843

0.0078

         

9

O. spiral

0.2028

0.2069

0.2017

0.2148

0.2016

0.2086

0.1999

0.1990

0.0019

        

10

O. nude-palp-A

0.2025

0.1929

0.2034

0.2354

0.2091

0.1879

0.2013

0.2016

0.2001

0.0082

       

11

O. nude-palp-B

0.2028

0.1919

0.1902

0.2216

0.2181

0.1996

0.2166

0.2298

0.1817

0.1674

0.0000

      

12

O. nude-palp-C

0.1899

0.1927

0.2001

0.2312

0.2057

0.2039

0.2188

0.1964

0.1966

0.1707

0.1593

0.0060

     

13

O. nude-palp-D

0.1950

0.2204

0.1971

0.2367

0.2140

0.2054

0.2339

0.2191

0.2063

0.1956

0.1888

0.1643

0.0141

    

14

O. nude-palp-E

0.2110

0.2250

0.2279

0.2087

0.2029

0.2228

0.2073

0.2176

0.1984

0.1926

0.1982

0.1713

0.1880

0.0072

   

15

O. nude-palp-F

0.1781

0.2100

0.1909

0.1933

0.2072

0.1948

0.2084

0.2114

0.1919

0.1823

0.1643

0.1626

0.1822

0.1723

-

  

16

O. mucofloris

0.2341

0.2106

0.2063

0.2138

0.2241

0.2432

0.1855

0.1856

0.2001

0.2075

0.2305

0.2061

0.2362

0.1950

0.2355

0.0060

 

17

O. japonicus

0.2064

0.2125

0.1934

0.1788

0.2082

0.2145

0.1602

0.1426

0.2156

0.2215

0.2095

0.2307

0.2431

0.2378

0.2203

0.1726

-

Four additional genes revealed concordant phylogenetic differences among the Osedax OTUs (Figures 2b-e). The 16S, 28S, and H3 sequences differed among the 15 Monterey Bay OTUs, but sequences were not available for O. japonicus and O. mucofloris. Although their 18S sequences were identical, O. yellow-collar and O. orange-collar differed from all the other Monterey OTUs and from O. mucofloris. The nodes leading to O. spiral and O. frankpressi were not stable, but all five gene-trees were broadly congruent in their topologies. Incongruence length difference (ILD) tests of homogeneity revealed that four of the five gene partitions were not significantly in conflict (P range: 0.119 - 1.00). Only the H3 tree was incongruent with respect to the 16S and 18S rRNA trees (P = 0.03 and 0.02, respectively). This problem resulted because H3 provided weak resolution among Osedax species that clustered together on a long branch relative to the outgroup S. brattstromi. ILD tests of homogeneity between H3 and the other partitions without the outgroup eliminated all remaining incongruence (P range: 0.125 - 1.00).

Both the individual gene trees and the combined analysis involving concatenated sequences from all five genes identified several well-supported Osedax clades (Roman numerals I - V, Figure 3). Although limited sequence information was available for O. mucofloris (COI and 18S) and O. japonicus (COI), they fell firmly within clade IV. O. frankpressi was also well supported as a member of clade IV in the combined analysis, but its position varied in the COI tree. Estimates of the age of Osedax depended on assumptions about rates of nucleotide substitution for mitochondrial COI. Mitochondrial COI divergence (D) between cognate species of shallow-water marine invertebrates isolated across the Isthmus of Panama grows at a rate of about 1.4% per MY [13]; so, the substitution rate (r 1) equals D/2 or 0.7% per lineage per My. Assuming r 1 = 0.7%, Osedax would have split from its monoliferan relatives about 45 MYA (95% HPD bounds: 31 - 47 Mya) (Figure 3). Time (T) to the most recent common ancestor for the Osedax would be 24 - 29 MY. Alternatively, assuming a slower substitution rate (r 2 = 0.21% per lineage per MY) estimated for deep-sea hydrothermal vent annelids [14], Osedax would have split from monoliferans about 130 MYA (95% HPD bounds: 104 - 160 Mya). T for Osedax would be 81 - 97 My.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1741-7007-7-74/MediaObjects/12915_2009_Article_282_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Phylogenetic relationships among Osedax species based on concatenated sequences from two protein-coding genes ( COI and H3) and three ribosomal RNA genes ( 16S , 18S , and 28S ). Roman numerals at the right-hand margin delineate five Osedax species-groups. Three methods were used to denote the support for internal nodes: Bayesian posterior probabilities (BPP), maximum parsimony (MP) jackknife, and RAxML bootstrap values. If all three methods produced values ≥ 95%, the node is marked with a large black dot. Where support values differ, the BPP, RAxML (italics) and MP values are shown in order, and asterisks (*) equal 100%. Nodes that were not recovered with RAxML or MP analyses are indicated by a dash. Support values ≤ 50 are not shown. Based on most parsimonious reconstructions, the white rectangles mark the loss of palps in O. spiral and the loss of pinnules for the nude-palp species group.

Discussion

Species diversity

Genetic and morphological differences among five previously named Osedax species provide a useful reference frame for assessing levels of divergence among the twelve undescribed OTUs considered in this study. Osedax rubiplumus, O. frankpressi and O. roseus live together on whale carcasses at depths greater than 1,000 m in Monterey Bay, CA (Figure 1; Table 1). To date, we have found no evidence for interbreeding among them. For example, an examination of 116 male Osedax sampled from the tubes of 77 O. rubiplumus females found no cases of foreign males in the female's tubes, despite the presence of O. roseus and O. frankpressi on the same carcass at 1820 m depth. Also including O. mucofloris from Sweden and O. japonicus from Japan, the mean sequence divergence (D) for mitochondrial COI between pairs of the named species was 19.6% (range: 15.7 to 23.4%; Table 2). Correspondingly, the mean pairwise D among the undescribed OTUs was 19.9% (range: 8.4 to 23.7%). The smallest value (8.4% between OTUs O. yellow-collar and O. orange-collar) was an order-of-magnitude greater than the largest divergence observed within any of these named or undescribed OTUs (π = 0.8% for O. nude-palp-A). These π values probably are underestimates, however, because each was obtained from a single locality. Isolation-by-distance and population subdivision across oceanic barriers are expected to increase π within broadly distributed species; however, π rarely exceeds 1 - 2%, unless other factors are involved. Global-scale phylogeographic surveys of COI sequence diversity have estimated π values less than 1% within named species of deep-sea hydrothermal vent annelids, mollusks and crustaceans, whereas D values typically are greater than 4% among species [1422]. Nonetheless, odd cases of accelerated COI substitution rates have been reported. Sex-biased mitochondrial transmission and heteroplasmy are associated with accelerated divergence in some bivalve mollusks [23], but no evidence exists for this phenomenon in annelids, and we have found no differences in the distribution of mitochondrial haplotypes between males and females for O. rubiplumus [12]. High mitochondrial divergence rates have been reported for some marine and freshwater animals [2426], but for the vast majority of cases mitochondrial COI is relatively conservative in its mutation rate within and among species. It is precisely the tendency of COI to discriminate clearly among the named species in many invertebrate taxa that has made this gene a common reference tool for DNA barcoding and molecular taxonomy [27, 28].

Although numerous species concepts have been debated over the years [29, 30], genealogical concordance across molecular and morphological characters provides a reliable indicator of longstanding evolutionary independence and consequently provides an operational criterion for species recognition [31]. Our confidence that the 12 presently unnamed OTUs from Monterey Bay represent distinct evolutionary lineages and warrant further consideration for naming as species is bolstered by morphological differences and concordant divergence observed across multiple gene loci. Only 18S rRNA failed to distinguish between members of the closest pair of OTUs, O. yellow-collar and O. orange-collar. This highly conservative gene barely varies across the bivalve genus Bathymodiolus, globally widespread and diverse deep-sea mussels [32], or across a diverse clade siboglinid annelids, the vestimentiferans [9]. Consequently the 18S differences reported for these Osedax OTUs are substantive. All the Monterey Bay OTUs also differed in their 16S, 18S, 28S and H3 gene sequences. Phylogenetic trees generated independently from each of these genes clustered the OTUs in essentially similar ways (Figure 2). The combined analysis involving concatenated sequences from the five genes clearly reveals the evidence for long-standing evolutionary independence among these lineages. Only single individuals presently represent two of these lineages, O. nude-palp-D and -F. Nonetheless, these individuals differed from one another and clustered phylogenetically in a concordant fashion for all five genes. Formal descriptions of the new taxa shall be treated in forthcoming publications, as we obtain the additional samples needed for morphological studies and museum vouchers. Failure to formally recognize such highly divergent evolutionary lineages as distinct species creates a risk of significantly underestimating biological diversity [33]. In the meantime, attempts to identify these and other boneworms will be aided by the present gene sequences, which have been deposited in public databases including GenBank (Table 4) and the Barcode of Life Data System [34].
Table 4

GenBank accession numbers for the DNA sequences used in this study.

Taxa

COI

16S

18S

28S

H3

O. rubiplumus

EU223307--08, EU223298--99, DQ996618, 20

FJ347656

FJ347681

FJ347671

FJ347704

O. frankpressi

AY586495, EU223314, DQ996621, FJ347605--07

FJ347658

FJ347682

FJ347674

FJ347705

O. mucofloris

AY827562-568

 

AY941263

  

O. japonicus

AB259569

    

O. roseus

EU164760--61, EU032469--70, FJ347607-08

FJ347657

FJ347683

FJ347670

FJ347709

O. spiral

DQ996622--24, FJ347636--38

FJ347647

FJ347693

FJ347676

FJ347703

O. yellow-collar

DQ996629, 32--33, EU223332--33, EU223335

FJ347660

FJ347689

FJ347672

FJ347706

O. orange-collar

EU223340--41, EU223354, FJ347627-29

FJ347661

FJ347690

FJ347673

FJ347707

O. nude-palp-A

EU223356--58, FJ347622--24

FJ347653

FJ347687

FJ347662

FJ347702

O. nude-palp-B

EU236218

FJ347652

FJ347686

FJ347665

FJ347701

O. nude-palp-C

EU267675--76, J347625--26

FJ347650

FJ347688

FJ347666

FJ347710

O. nude-palp-D

FJ347630--31

FJ347649

FJ347691

FJ347667

FJ347708

O. nude-palp-E

FJ347632--35

FJ347648

FJ347692

FJ347664

FJ347700

O. nude-palp-F

FJ347643

FJ347651

FJ347695

FJ347663

FJ347699

O. white-collar

FJ347610--15

FJ347659

FJ347684

FJ347675

FJ347712

O. yellow-patch

FJ347616--21

FJ347654

FJ347685

FJ347668

FJ347698

O. green-palp

FJ347639--42

FJ347655

FJ347694

FJ347669

FJ347711

S. brattstromi

FJ347645

FJ347680

FJ347677

FJ347697

FJ347645

Phylogeny

Individual gene trees (Figure 2) and the combined phylogenetic analysis (Figure 3) identified several well-supported groupings within Osedax (clades I - V). Osedax spiral (clade III) stands alone as the most atypical of these worms. Its oviduct does not extend beyond the trunk, and it lacks the vascularized anterior palps that characterize all other Osedax (Figure 1g). Unlike all other Osedax, O. spiral is a late successional species which lives at the sediment interface and produces long fibrous roots that penetrate the anoxic (black and sulfidic) sediments to exploit buried fragments of bone [5]. The lack of palps in O. spiral probably represents a character loss under a most parsimonious reconstruction, because all other siboglinids bear an anterior crown composed of one or more palps. The nude-palp OTUs (clade II) differ because their palps do not bear the lateral pinnules seen in the other Osedax clades (Figures 1i and 1j). Lack of pinnules may represent a character loss, but supporting evidence regarding the homology and distribution of pinnules in other siboglinids is uncertain. Monoliferans have two or more palps, with numerous pinnules in the case of Vestimentifera, but pinnules are absent in Sclerolinum and in some frenulates [10, 35].

The remaining Osedax clades (I, IV and V) bear four palps with numerous pinnules that give the crown a feathery appearance (e.g., Figure 1a). The two members of clade V have long branched roots that are green in color (Figures 1e-f) and palps that are bright red with outwardly facing pinnules. Clades II and V share robust lobate roots. The two members of clade (I) have relatively short trunks and palps (Figure 1h), but they have not been found in great numbers because they are small and may have been overlooked in earlier samples. Members of clade IV, which have red, pink or even white crowns (Figures 1a-d), were recovered from depths of 1,020 m or less, excepting O. frankpressi, which has not been found shallower than 1,800 m. Occupation of shallow habitats might be a derived condition for these members of clade IV, though support for a shallow clade was weak (Figure 3). Addition of comparative sequence data from the other shallowmembers of this clade, O. japonicus and O. mucofloris, might help to strengthen this relationship (only 18S and COI data are available on GenBank for O. mucofloris and only COI for O. japonicus). Otherwise, no clear evolutionary pattern of depth utilization is apparent among the major Osedax clades. Several of these OTUs were sampled from a single depth, others were sampled across relatively narrow depth ranges (300 - 600 m for O. yellow-patch and O. orange-collar), and some were sampled across broad depth ranges (1,000 m for O. frankpressi, and O. rubiplumus and 1,200 m for O. roseus).

Age of Osedax

For now, we are unable to confidently delineate a timeframe during which Osedax split from its monoliferan relatives or the age (T) of the most recent common ancestor for this unusual genus. Present evidence indicates that Osedax species live primarily on organic compounds extracted directly from sunken bones. Their Oceanospirillales symbionts are capable of growing on collagen and cholesterol as primary carbon sources [6]. Video evidence suggests that O. japonicus also grows on spermaceti, a wax found in the head of sperm whales [3]. There are arguments to suggest that Osedax may not be nutritionally restricted to living on whale-falls. Experimental deployments of cow bones and observations of sunken possible pig bones reveal that Osedax can grow and reproduce on a range of mammalian tissues including those from terrestrial quadrupeds [7, 36]. So, it may be unwarranted to associate the evolution of these bone-eating worms with the origin and spread of oceanic whales, as previously suggested by Rouse et al. [1]. Nonetheless, one of the scenarios that we have considered here is consistent with that hypothesis. If we assumed a divergence rate (d = 1.4% per MY) calibrated for mitochondrial genes from shallow-water marine invertebrates [13], and applied this rate (r 1 = d/2 = 0.70%/lineage/My) to COI divergence, we estimated that Osedax split from its monoliferan relatives about 45 Mya, possibly coincident with the origins of large archeocete cetaceans during the Eocene [37]. According to this scenario, the most recent common ancestor for the Osedax sampled to date would have lived about 26 MYA, during the Late Oligocene and roughly coincident with the diversification of modern cetaceans [38].

Alternatively, we can assume a slower substitution rate (r 1 = 0.21%/lineage/My) calibrated from COI divergence in deep-sea annelids, including Vestimentifera [14], as was used by Rouse et al. [1] for estimating the origin of Osedax when only O. rubiplumus and O. frankpressi were known. Under this rate then Osedax would appear to be much older than previously hypothesized [1]. This result is not surprising given the larger diversity of Osedax shown here. Accordingly, Osedax split from its monoliferan relatives during the Cretaceous, and the most recent common ancestor for the genus would have lived during the Late Cretaceous. Perhaps the calcified cartilage and bones from a variety of large Cretaceous vertebrates supported these worms -- e.g., mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, turtles, and possibly chondrichthyans and teleosts [3942]. Fossilized snails and bivalves were recently found with plesiosaur bones; so the sunken carcasses of these large marine reptiles appear to be capable of supporting communities much like those found on modern whale-falls [43]. Nevertheless, this scenario is problematic, because the major Osedax clades would have diversified around the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K/T) boundary, after the extinction of most large-bodied reptilians [44]. Although dyrosaurid crocodylomorphs survived the K/T event, they were confined to relatively shallow coastal environments [45] and probably would not have supported Osedax. Large turtles and chondrichthyans also survived the K/T boundary [42], and large teleosts appeared again during the early Paleocene [46]. It is unknown whether Osedax can exploit these resources; so, arguably a 20 MY gap may have existed during the Paleocene when there would have been little in the way of large vertebrate remains for Osedax. Another problem with this scenario is the concern that nucleotide substitution rates may be slower in the deep-sea vent annelids used to obtain the r 2 = 0.21% calibration rate [9].

Conclusion

The present phylogenetic evidence based on DNA sequences from multiple independent genes provides a solid foundation for future discoveries and taxonomic descriptions of Osedax species. However, our efforts to estimate evolutionary ages for the diversification of this unusual group of worms only allowed the erection of new hypotheses that could be tested with independent evidence from the fossil record. Soft-bodied invertebrates like Osedax do not often leave convincing fossils, but these worms might leave traces of their activity by the distinctive holes they bore into bones. To date, we have found no other animals that create similar borings in bones. Consequently, we have distributed whalebones containing Osedax to several paleontologists who are also examining the taphonomy of fossilized bones from plesiosaurs and cetaceans. It is to be hoped that these efforts will help us to narrow the age of this remarkable genus of bone-eating worms.

Materials and methods

Specimens

Locations of the Monterey Bay whale-falls, except whale-634, are provided elsewhere [5]. Whale-634 is the carcass of a juvenile gray whale that was sunk on 5 October 2004 at a depth of 633 m at 36.802°N and 122.994°W. We used the remotely operated vehicles, ROV Tiburon and ROV Ventana, operated by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) to collect Osedax-inhabited bones from five whale-fall localities (Table 1). Bones were transported to the surface in closed insulated containers and stored temporarily in cold (4°C) filtered seawater. Worms were dissected from the bones and photographed. Then a palp tip was removed and stored in 95% ethanol or frozen immediately at -80°C. The remainder of each specimen was preserved for anatomical studies and taxonomic descriptions. Voucher specimens were lodged in Scripps Institution of Oceanography Benthic Invertebrate Collection (catalogue numbers in Table 1). Other specimens will be distributed to other Museums upon their formal description (Rouse, in progress). For the present purpose, we list the approximate sizes (trunk plus crown length) and several morphological characteristics of each OTU (Table 1).

Published DNA sequences from Osedax mucofloris (18S rRNA and COI) and O. japonicus (COI) were recovered from GenBank [2]. A previous phylogenetic analyses [1] placed Osedax in a clade that also includes the Monolifera, which includes Sclerolinum and vestimentiferan tubeworms [10]. The frenulates, a diverse group of slender chemosynthetic worms are basal to the monoliferans and Osedax [10, 47]. Ongoing studies of siboglinid phylogeny revealed that Sclerolinum is presently our best choice as outgroup for this study of Osedax phylogeny. The vestimentiferan Lamellibrachia columna was also examined, and its substitution as outgroup did not substantively alter the tree topologies for the ingroup. Other vestimentiferans were not considered, however, because incomplete sequence data are available and because independent evidence from several genes suggests that rates of nucleotide substitution may have slowed down in these deep-sea worms [9, 14, 48]. Consequently, we have used DNA sequences from the monoliferan Sclerolinum brattstromi, collected near Bergen, Norway. GenBank accession numbers for all the DNA sequences used in this study are listed in Table 4.

DNA methods

Total DNA was extracted using the DNeasy kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA) according to manufacturer's instructions. We used primers that amplified approximately 1200 bp of COI [49], approximately500 bp of 16S rRNA [50], approximately 1000 bp of 28S rRNA [51], approximately 1800 bp of 18S rRNA [52], and approximately 370 bp of H3 [53]. Amplification reactions with AmpliTaq Gold (Applied Biosystems Inc., Foster City, CA, USA) were conducted in a GeneAmp 9700 thermal cycler (Applied Biosystems Inc., Carlsbad, CA, USA) with the following parameters: 95°C/10 min, 35× (94°C/1 min, 55°C/1 min, 72°C/1 min), and 72°C/7 min. If available, at least six individuals of each species were sequenced for each locus. PCR products were diluted in 50 μl sterile water and cleaned with Multiscreen HTS PCR 96 filter plates (Millipore Corp., Billerica, MA, USA). The products were sequenced bidirectionally with the same primers on an ABI 3100 sequencer using BigDye terminator v.3.1 chemistry (Applied Biosystems Inc., Foster City, CA, USA).

Phylogenetic analyses

Sequences were assembled using CodonCode Aligner v. 2.06 (CodonCode Corporation, Dedham, MA, USA), aligned using Muscle [54] and edited by eye using Maclade v. 4.08 [55]. We used MrModelTest [56] and the Akaike information criterion [57] to determine appropriate evolutionary models for each gene (Table 2). COI and H3 were partitioned by codon position, and parameters were estimated separately for each position. RNA secondary structures were predicted with GeneBee and used to partition stems and loops in 16S, 18S, and 28S sequences. The doublet model was used for RNA stems and a standard 4 × 4 nucleotide model was used for RNA loops. The number of indel haplotypes for rRNA sequences (total number of indels, number after excluding overlapping indels, and average length of indels) were estimated with DNAsp v. 4.90.1 [58] using the diallelic model. Gaps in the RNA sequences were treated as a fifth character-state in subsequent Bayesian phylogenetic analyses and as missing data in parsimony and maximum likelihood (ML) analyses. The program DAMBE [59] was used to examine saturation of the mitochondrial COI sequences for the Osedax OTUs and outgroup taxa.

First, each gene was analyzed separately using MrBayes v. 3.1.2 [60, 61]. Bayesian analyses were run as six chains for 5·106 generations. Print and sample frequencies were 1,000 generations, and the burn-in was the first 100 samples. We used AWTY [62] to assess whether analyses reached convergence and FigTree v. 1.1.2 [63] to display the resulting trees. We then used the incongruence length difference (ILD) function implemented in Paup* v. 4.0 [64] to assess congruence of the tree topologies produced by the individual gene partitions. ILD tests were conducted both with and without the outgroup taxa. The ILD partition homogeneity test was run for 1,000 replicates with 10 random additions of gene sequences.

A combined analysis was conducted with concatenated sequences from the five genes. If available, multiple individuals of each OTU were sequenced for each gene; however, the concatenated multilocus sequences used in the phylogenetic analyses were obtained from a single representative individual for each OTU. The five gene regions were partitioned separately according to the previously determined model parameters. Bayesian phylogenetic analyses were then conducted with MrBayes v. 3.1.2. Maximum parsimony analysis of the combined data set was performed with Paup* v. 4.0 [64] using an equally weighted character matrix, heuristic searches using the tree-bisection-reconnection branch-swapping algorithm, and 100 random addition replicates. The resulting shortest tree included 3481 steps. A parsimony jackknife analysis (with 37% deletion) was run for 100 iterations with the same settings as the parsimony search. ML analysis was conducted using RAxML 7.0.4 (with bootstrapping) using GTR+I+G as the model for each partition on combined data. RAxML analyses were performed with the CIPRES cluster at the San Diego Supercomputer Center.

Relaxed molecular clock

A Bayesian, MCMC method implemented in Beast v. 1.4.8 [65] was used to estimate the evolutionary ages of internal nodes in the tree topology derived from the combined phylogenetic analysis. Estimates of the time to most recent common ancestor (T) were based on two calibrations nucleotide substitution rates for mitochondrial COI. Substitution rates (r) were estimated as percentage per lineage per million years (my) so they equal one-half the divergence per unit of time (T) between taxa (r = 100 × D/2T). First, we assumed a conventional substitution rate, r 1 = 0.7%, based on D = 1.4% per my pairwise divergence rate commonly cited for shallow water marine invertebrates that were isolated by the emergence of the Isthmus of Panama [13]. Second, we used a slower rate, r 2 = 0.21%, previously calibrated from a vicariant event that split cognate-species of deep-sea hydrothermal vent annelids between the East Pacific Rise and the northeastern Pacific ridge system about 28.5 myA [14]. Calibrations were not available for the other genes.

We used a relaxed, uncorrelated, lognormal molecular clock with a general time reversible (GTR) substitution model that was unlinked across codon positions. Initial MCMC test runs consisted of 10 million generations to optimize the scale factors of the prior function. Three independent MCMC chains were run for 100 million generations, sampled every 1000 generations. Results were visualized in and FigTree v. 1.1.2 and Tracer v. 1.4 [66].

Abbreviations

16S: 

mitochondrial large subunit ribosomal RNA

18S: 

nuclear small subunit subunit ribosomal RNA

28S: 

nuclear large subunit ribosomal RNA

COI: 

cytochrome oxidase subunit I

GC: 

guanine-cytosine

GTR: 

general time reversible

H3: 

Histone 3

K/T: 

Cretaceous-Tertiary

MCMC: 

Monte Carlo Markov chain

MYA: 

million (106) years ago

OTUs: 

operational taxonomic units

ROV: 

remotely operated vehicle.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank the captains and crews of the R/V Western Flyer and R/V Point Lobos and the pilots of ROV Tiburon and ROV Ventana for their technical support and patience. We gratefully appreciate the role that W. Joe Jones played in the early phases of this research. Thanks to Ken Halanych for providing a tissue sample from Sclerolinum brattstromi, and to Julio Harvey for his editorial help. Funding for this project was provided by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (The David and Lucile Packard Foundation), NSF Award #0334932 (under the Assembling the Tree of Life program) to investigate the Tree of Life for Protostomes, and SIO for start up funds to GWR.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
(2)
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD

References

  1. Rouse GW, Goffredi SK, Vrijenhoek RC: Osedax: Bone-eating marine worms with dwarf males. Science. 2004, 305: 668-671. 10.1126/science.1098650.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Glover AG, Käilström B, Smith CR, Dahlgren TG: World-wide whale worms? A new species of Osedax from the shallow north Atlantic. Proc R Soc Lond B. 2005, 272: 2587-2592. 10.1098/rspb.2005.3275.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Fujikura K, Fujiwara Y, Kawato M: A new species of Osedax (Annelida: Siboglinidae) associated with whale carcasses off Kyushu, Japan. Zoolog Sci. 2006, 23: 733-740. 10.2108/zsj.23.733.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Rouse GW, Worsaae K, Johnson SB, Jones WJ, Vrijenhoek RC: Acquisition of dwarf male 'harems' by recently settled females of Osedax roseus n. sp. (Siboglinidae; Annelida). Biol Bull. 2008, 214: 67-82. 10.2307/25066661.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Braby CE, Rouse GW, Johnson SB, Jones WJ, Vrijenhoek RC: Bathymetric and temporal variation among Osedax boneworms and associated megafauna on whale-falls in Monterey Bay, California. Deep Sea Res I. 2007, 54: 1773-1791. 10.1016/j.dsr.2007.05.014.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Goffredi SK, Johnson SB, Vrijenhoek RC: Genetic and potential function of microbial symbionts associated with newly discovered species of Osedax polychaete worms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007, 73: 2314-2323. 10.1128/AEM.01986-06.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Jones WJ, Johnson SB, Rouse GW, Vrijenhoek RC: Marine worms (genus Osedax) colonize cow bones. Proc R Soc Lond B. 2008, 275: 387-391. 10.1098/rspb.2007.1437.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Rouse GW, Wilson NG, Goffredi SK, Johnson SB, Smart T, Widmer C, Young CM, Vrijenhoek RC: Spawning and development in Osedax boneworms (Siboglinidae, Annelida). Mar Biol. 2009, 156: 395-405. 10.1007/s00227-008-1091-z.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Halanych KM, Feldman RA, Vrijenhoek RC: Molecular evidence that Sclerolinum brattstromi is closely related to vestimentiferans, not frenulate pogonophorans (Siboglinidae, Annelida). Biol Bull. 2001, 201: 65-75. 10.2307/1543527.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Rouse G: A cladistic analysis of Siboglinidae Caullery, 1914 (Polychaeta, Annelida): formerly the phyla Pogonophora and Vestimentifera. Zool J Linn Soc. 2001, 132: 55-80. 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2001.tb02271.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Goffredi SK, Orphan VJ, Rouse GW, Jahnke L, Embaye T, Turk K, Lee R, Vrijenhoek RC: Evolutionary innovation: a bone-eating marine symbiosis. Environ Micobiol. 2005, 7: 1369-1378. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2005.00824.x.Google Scholar
  12. Vrijenhoek RC, Johnson S, Rouse GW: Bone-eating Osedax females and their "harems" of dwarf males are recruited from a common larval pool. Mol Ecol. 2008, 17: 4535-4544. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03937.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Knowlton N, Weigt LA: New dates and new rates for divergence across the Isthmus of Panama. Proc R Soc Lond B. 1998, 265: 2257-2263. 10.1098/rspb.1998.0568.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Chevaldonné P, Jollivet D, Desbruyères D, Lutz RA, Vrijenhoek RC: Sister-species of eastern Pacific hydrothermal-vent worms (Ampharetidae, Alvinelidae, Vestimentifera) provide new mitochondrial clock calibration. Cah Biol Mar. 2002, 43: 367-370.Google Scholar
  15. Maas PAY, O'Mullan GD, Lutz RA, Vrijenhoek RC: Genetic and morphometric characterization of mussels (Bivalvia: Mytilidae) from Mid-Atlantic hydrothermal vents. Biol Bull. 1999, 196: 265-272. 10.2307/1542951.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson SB, Young CR, Jones WJ, Warén A, Vrijenhoek RC: Migration, isolation, and speciation of hydrothermal vent limpets (Gastropoda; Lepetodrilidae) across the Blanco Transform Fault. Biol Bull. 2006, 210: 140-157. 10.2307/4134603.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Peek A, Gustafson R, Lutz R, Vrijenhoek R: Evolutionary relationships of deep-sea hydrothermal vent and cold-water seep clams (Bivalvia: Vesicomyidae): Results from the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I. Mar Biol. 1997, 130: 151-161. 10.1007/s002270050234.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Won Y-J, Young CR, Lutz RA, Vrijenhoek RC: Dispersal barriers and isolation among deep-sea mussel populations (Mytilidae: Bathymodiolus) from eastern Pacific hydrothermal vents. Mol Ecol. 2003, 12: 169-184. 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01726.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hurtado LA, Lutz RA, Vrijenhoek RC: Distinct patterns of genetic differentiation among annelids of eastern Pacific hydrothermal vents. Mol Ecol. 2004, 13: 2603-2615. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02287.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Young CR, Fujio S, Vrijenhoek RC: Directional dispersal between mid-ocean ridges: deep-ocean circulation and gene flow in Ridgeia piscesae. Mol Ecol. 2008, 17: 1718-1731. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03609.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Guinot D, Hurtado LA: Two new species of hydrothermal vent crabs of the genus Bythograea from the southern East Pacific Rise and from the Galapagos Rift (Crustacea Decapoda Brachyura Bythograeidae). C R Biol. 2003, 326: 423-439. 10.1016/S1631-0691(03)00126-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Guinot D, Hurtado LA, Vrijenhoek RC: New genus and species of brachyuran crab from the southern East Pacific Rise (Crustacea Decapoda Brachyura Bythograeidae). C R Biol. 2002, 325: 1119-1128. 10.1016/S1631-0691(02)01520-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Stewart DT, Kenchington ER, Singh RK, Zouros E: Degree of selective constraint as an explanation of the different rates of evolution of gender-specific mitochondrial DNA lineages in the mussel mytilus. Genetics. 1996, 143: 1349-1357.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Audzijonyte A, Väinölä R: Phylogeographic analyses of a circumarctic coastal and a boreal lacustrine mysid crustacean, and evidence of fast post-glacial mtDNA rates. Mol Ecol. 2006, 15: 3287-3301. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02998.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Waters JM, Rowe DL, Apte S, King TM, Wallis GP, Anderson L, Norris RJ, Craw D, Burridge CP: Geological dates and molecular rates: rapid divergence of rivers and their biotas. Sys Biol. 2007, 56: 271-282. 10.1080/10635150701313855.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Burton RS: Intraspecific phylogeography across the Point Conception biogeogrphic boundary. Evolution. 1998, 52: 734-745. 10.2307/2411268.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, deWaard JR: Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc Biol Sci. 2003, 270: 313-321. 10.1098/rspb.2002.2218.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Vogler AP, Monaghan MT: Recent advances in DNA taxonomy. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research. 2007, 45: 1-10. 10.1111/j.1439-0469.2006.00384.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Hey J: On the failure of modern species concepts. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006, 21: 447-450. 10.1016/j.tree.2006.05.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayden RL: A hierarchy of species concepts: the denouement in the saga of the species problem. Species: The Units of Biodiversity. Edited by: Claridge MF, Dawah AH, Wilson MR. 1997, Chapman & Hall, 381-424.Google Scholar
  31. Avise JC, Wollenberg K: Phylogenies and the origin of species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997, 94: 7748-7755. 10.1073/pnas.94.15.7748.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones WJ, Won YJ, Maas PAY, Smith PJ, Lutz RA, Vrijenhoek RC: Evolution of habitat use by deep-sea mussels. Mar Biol. 2006, 148: 841-851. 10.1007/s00227-005-0115-1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Bickford D, Lohman DJ, Sohdi NS, Ng PKL, Meier R, Winker K, Ingram KK, Das I: Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007, 22: 148-155. 10.1016/j.tree.2006.11.004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ratnasingham S, Hebert PDN: BOLD: the barcode of life data system. Mol Ecol Notes. 2007, 7: 355-364. 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x. [http://www.barcodinglife.org]PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ivanov AV: Pogonophora. 1963, London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  36. Vrijenhoek RC, Collins PC, Van Dover CL: Bone-eating marine worms: habitat specialists or generalists?. Proc R Soc Lond B. 2008, 275: 1963-1964. 10.1098/rspb.2008.0350.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Thewissen JGM, Williams EM: The early radiations of Cetacea (Mammalia): Evolutionary pattern and developmental correlations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 2002, 33: 73-90. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.020602.095426.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Deméré TA, McGowen MR, Berta A, Gatesy J: Morphological and molecular evidence for a stepwise evolutionary transition from teeth to baleen in mysticete whales. Sys Biol. 2008, 57: 15-37. 10.1080/10635150701884632.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Lingham-Soliar T: Anatomy and functional morphology of the largest marine reptile known, Mosasaurus hoffmanni (Mosasauridae, Reptilia) from the Upper Cretaceous, Upper Maastrichtian of the Netherlands. Philos Trans Biol Sci. 1995, 155-180. 10.1098/rstb.1995.0019.Google Scholar
  40. O'Keefe F, Carrano M: Correlated trends in the evolution of the plesiosaur locomotor system. Paleobiology. 2005, 31: 656-675.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Kear B, Lee M: A primitive protostegid from Australia and early sea turtle evolution. Biol Lett. 2006, 2: 116-119. 10.1098/rsbl.2005.0406.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Kriwet J, Benton M: Neoselachian (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii) diversity across the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 2004, 214: 181-194.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Kaim A, Kobayashi Y, Echizenya H, Jenkins RG, Tanabe K: Chemosynthesis-based associations on Cretaceous plesiosaurid carcasses. Acta Palaeontol Pol. 2008, 53: 97-104. 10.4202/app.2008.0106.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Bardet N: Extinction events among Mesozoic marine reptiles. Histor Biol. 1994, 7: 313-324. 10.1080/10292389409380462.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Barbosa J, Kellner A, Viana M: New dyrosaurid crocodylomorph and evidences for faunal turnover at the K-P transition in Brazil. Proc R Soc Lond B. 2008, 275: 1385-10.1098/rspb.2008.0110.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Friedman M: Ecomorphological selectivity among marine teleost fishes during the end-Cretaceous extinction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009, 106: 5218-10.1073/pnas.0808468106.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Halanych K: Molecular phylogeny of siboglinid annelids (a.k.a. pogonophorans): a review. Hydrobiologia. 2005, 535-536: 297-307. 10.1007/s10750-004-1437-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. McMullin E, Hourdez S, Schaeffer SW, Fisher CR: Phylogeny and biogeography of deep sea vestimentiferans and their bacterial symbionts. Symbiosis. 2003, 34: 1-41.Google Scholar
  49. Nelson K, Fisher C: Absence of cospeciation in deep-sea vestimentiferan tube worms and their bacterial endosymbionts. Symbiosis. 2000, 28: 1-15.Google Scholar
  50. Palumbi SR: Nucleic acids II: The polymerase chain reaction. Molecular Systematics. Edited by: Hillis DM, Moritz C, Mable BK. 1996, Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, 205-247. 2Google Scholar
  51. Lenaers G, Maroteaux L, Michot B, Herzog M: Dinoflagellates in evolution. A molecular phylogenetic analysis of large subunit ribosomal RNA. J Mol Evol. 1989, 29: 40-51. 10.1007/BF02106180.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Hillis DM, Dixon MT: Ribosomal DNA: molecular evolution and phylogenetic inference. Quart Rev Biol. 1991, 66: 411-453. 10.1086/417338.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Colgan D, Ponder W, Eggler P: Gastropod evolutionary rates and phylogenetic relationships assessed using partial 28S rDNA and histone H3 sequences. Zool Scripta. 2000, 29: 29-63. 10.1046/j.1463-6409.2000.00021.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Edgar RC: MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity. BMC Bioinform. 2004, 5: 113-10.1186/1471-2105-5-113.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Maddison WP, Maddison DR: MacClade (Ver. 4.0): Computer Program for Phylogenetic Analysis, version 4.08. 2005, Sinauer Associates, IncGoogle Scholar
  56. Nylander JAA: MrModeltest, version 2. 2004, Distributed by the author, Evolutionary Biology Centre, Uppsala UniversityGoogle Scholar
  57. Akaike H: A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Contr. 1974, 19: 716-723. 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Rozas J, Sánchez-DelBarrio JC, Messeguer X, Rozas R: DnaSP, DNA polymorphism analyses by the coalescent and other methods. Bioinformatics. 2003, 19: 2496-2497. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg359.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Xia X, Xie Z: DAMBE: Software Package for Data Analysis in Molecular Biology and Evolution. J Hered. 2001, 92: 371-373. 10.1093/jhered/92.4.371.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F: MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics. 2001, 17: 754-755. 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP: MRBAYES 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2003, 19: 1572-1574. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Nylander JAA, Wilgenbusch JC, Warren DL, Swofford DL: AWTY (are we there yet?): a system for graphical exploration of MCMC convergence in Bayesian phylogenetics. Bioinformatics. 2008, 24: 581-583. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm388.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Rambaut A, Drummond A: FigTree: Tree Figure Drawing Tool, version 1.1.2. 2003, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  64. Swofford DL: PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and other methods), version 4.0, Sinauer. 2002Google Scholar
  65. Drummond AJ, Rambaut A: BEAST, Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evol Biol. 2007, 7: 214-10.1186/1471-2148-7-214.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Rambaut A, Drummond AJ: Tracer, version 1.4. 2003, University of OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Vrijenhoek et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.