An evaluation of the phylogenetic position of the dinoflagellateCrypthecodinium cohnii based on 5S rRNA characterization

Summary

Partial nucleotide sequences for the 5S and 5.8S rRNAs from the dinoflagellateCrypthecodinium cohnii have been determined, using a rapid chemical sequencing method, for the purpose of studying dinoflagellate phylogeny. The 5S RNA sequence shows the most homology (75%) with the 5S sequences of higher animals and the least homology (< 60%) with prokaryotic sequences. In addition, it lacks certain residues which are highly conserved in prokaryotic molecules but are generally missing in eukaryotes. These findings suggest a distant relationship between dinoflagellates and the prokaryotes. Using two different sequence alignments and several different methods for selecting an optimum phylogenetic tree for a collection of 5S sequences including higher plants and animals, fungi, and bacteria in addition to theC. cohnii sequence, the dinoflagellate lineage was joined to the tree at the point of the plant-animal divergence, well above the branching point of the fungi. This result is of interest because it implies that the well-documented absence in dinoflagellates of histones and the typical nucleosomal subunit structure of eukaryotic chromatin is the result of secondary loss. and not anindication of an extremely primitive state, as was previously suggested. Computer simulations of 5S RNA evolution have been carried out in order to demonstrate that the above-mentioned phylogenetic placement is not likely to be the result of random sequence convergence.

We have also constructed a phylogeny for 5.8S RNA sequences in which plants, animals, fungi and the dinoflagellates are again represented. While the order of branching on this tree is the same as in the 5S tree for the organisms represented, because it lacks prokaryotes, the 5.8S tree cannot be considered a strong independent confirmation of the 5S result. Moreover, 5.8S RNA appears to have experienced very different rates of evolution in different lineages indicating that it may not be the best indicator of evolutionary relationships.

We have also considered the existing biological data regarding dinoflagellate evolution in relation to our molecular phylogenetic evidence.