↓ Skip to main content

Phylogeny of Choanozoa, Apusozoa, and Other Protozoa and Early Eukaryote Megaevolution

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Evolution, May 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
12 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
227 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Phylogeny of Choanozoa, Apusozoa, and Other Protozoa and Early Eukaryote Megaevolution
Published in
Journal of Molecular Evolution, May 2003
DOI 10.1007/s00239-002-2424-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Cavalier-Smith, Ema E. -Y. Chao

Abstract

The primary diversification of eukaryotes involved protozoa, especially zooflagellates-flagellate protozoa without plastids. Understanding the origins of the higher eukaryotic kingdoms (two purely heterotrophic, Animalia and Fungi, and two primarily photosynthetic, Plantae and Chromista) depends on clarifying evolutionary relationships among the phyla of the ancestral kingdom Protozoa. We therefore sequenced 18S rRNA genes from 10 strains from the protozoan phyla Choanozoa and Apusozoa. Eukaryote diversity is encompassed by three early-radiating, arguably monophyletic groups: Amoebozoa, opisthokonts, and bikonts. Our taxon-rich rRNA phylogeny for eukaryotes allowing for intersite rate variation strongly supports the opisthokont clade (animals, Choanozoa, Fungi). It agrees with the view that Choanozoa are sisters of or ancestral to animals and reveals a novel nonflagellate choanozoan lineage, Ministeriida, sister either to choanoflagellates, traditionally considered animal ancestors, or to animals. Maximum likelihood trees suggest that within animals Placozoa are derived from medusozoan Cnidaria (we therefore place Placozoa as a class within subphylum Medusozoa of the Cnidaria) and hexactinellid sponges evolved from demosponges. The bikont and amoebozoan radiations are both very ill resolved. Bikonts comprise the kingdoms Plantae and Chromista and three major protozoan groups: alveolates, excavates, and Rhizaria. Our analysis weakly suggests that Apusozoa, represented by Ancyromonas and the apusomonads ( Apusomonas and the highly diverse and much more ancient genus Amastigomonas, from which it evolved), are not closely related to other Rhizaria and may be the most divergent bikont lineages. Although Ancyromonas and apusomonads appear deeply divergent in 18S rRNA trees, the trees neither refute nor support the monophyly of Apusozoa. The bikont phylum Cercozoa weakly but consistently appears as sister to Retaria (Foraminifera; Radiolaria), together forming a hitherto largely unrecognized major protozoan assemblage (core Rhizaria) in the eukaryote tree. Both 18S rRNA sequence trees and a rare deletion show that nonciliate haplosporidian and paramyxid parasites of shellfish (together comprising the Ascetosporea) are not two separate phyla, as often thought, but part of the Cercozoa, and may be related to the plant-parasitic plasmodiophorids and phagomyxids, which were originally the only parasites included in the Cercozoa. We discuss rRNA trees in relation to other evidence concerning the basal diversification and root of the eukaryotic tree and argue that bikonts and opisthokonts, at least, are holophyletic. Amoebozoa and bikonts may be sisters-jointly called anterokonts, as they ancestrally had an anterior cilium, not a posterior one like opisthokonts; this contrasting ciliary orientation may reflect a primary divergence in feeding mode of the first eukaryotes. Anterokonts also differ from opisthokonts in sterol biosynthesis (cycloartenol versus lanosterol pathway), major exoskeletal polymers (cellulose versus chitin), and mitochondrial cristae (ancestrally tubular not flat), possibly also primary divergences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 6 3%
United States 5 2%
Brazil 2 <1%
Czechia 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 180 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 62 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 22 11%
Professor 19 9%
Student > Master 17 8%
Other 33 16%
Unknown 14 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 125 60%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 13%
Environmental Science 13 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 13 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 2%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 19 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,846,298
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#58
of 1,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,157
of 50,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 50,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.