Elongation factor-2: a useful gene for arthropod phylogenetics.

Robust resolution of controversial higher-level groupings within Arthropoda requires additional sources of characters. Toward this end, elongation factor-2 sequences (1899 nucleotides) were generated from 17 arthropod taxa (5 chelicerates, 6 crustaceans, 3 hexapods, 3 myriapods) plus an onychophoran and a tardigrade as outgroups. Likelihood and parsimony analyses of nucleotide and amino acid data sets consistently recovered Myriapoda and major chelicerate groups with high bootstrap support. Crustacea + Hexapoda (= Pancrustacea) was recovered with moderate support, whereas the conflicting group Myriapoda + Hexapoda (= Atelocerata) was never recovered and bootstrap values were always <5%. With additional nonarthropod sequences included, one indel supports monophyly of Tardigrada, Onychophora, and Arthropoda relative to molluscan, annelidan, and mammalian outgroups. New and previously published sequences from RNA polymerase II (1038 nucleotides) and elongation factor-1alpha (1092 nucleotides) were analyzed for the same taxa. A comparison of bootstrap values from the three genes analyzed separately revealed widely varying values for some clades, although there was never strong support for conflicting groups. In combined analyses, there was strong bootstrap support for the generally accepted clades Arachnida, Arthropoda, Euchelicerata, Hexapoda, and Pycnogonida, and for Chelicerata, Myriapoda, and Pancrustacea, whose monophyly is more controversial. Recovery of some additional groups was fairly robust to method of analysis but bootstrap values were not high; these included Pancrustacea + Chelicerata, Hexapoda + Cephalocarida + Remipedia, Cephalocarida + Remipedia, and Malaocostraca + Cirripedia. Atelocerata (= Myriapoda + Hexapoda) was never recovered. Elongation factor-2 is now the second protein-encoding, nuclear gene (in addition to RNA polymerase II) to support Pancrustacea over Atelocerata. Atelocerata is widely cited in morphology-based analyses, and the discrepancy between results derived from molecular and morphological data deserves greater attention.
(Copyright 2001 Academic Press.)