Back to all available

Genome skimming of Poecilosclerida (Porifera) reveals conserved and hyperrearranged mitochondrial genomes

bioinformatics
evolutionary-studies
genomics
taxonomy
zoology

Abstract

Genome skimming is a cost-effective approach that efficiently recovers multi-copy genomic regions, making it particularly valuable for phylogenetic research and biodiversity assessments. In this study, we applied shallow shotgun metagenome sequencing to 15 poecilosclerid sponges, successfully assembling complete mitochondrial genomes for four species and full rDNA clusters for the majority of samples, despite considerable variation in the retrieval of genomic regions and exogenous, non-poriferan sequences. Phylogenetic reconstructions using both rDNA and mtDNA sequences uncovered extensive polyphyly within several key families, such as Coelospheridade and Mycalidade, underscoring significant systematic inconsistencies in generic, familial, and ordinal levels, and emphasizing the need for comprehensive taxonomic revision throughout Poecilosclerida to reflect natural groups. The mitogenomes obtained from Clathria ( Microciona ) sp. (18,725 bp), Desmapsamma anchorata (19,099 bp), Latrunculia apicalis (19,630 bp), and Neopodospongia tupecomareni (19,983 bp) exhibited conserved architectural features typical of the order, alongside notable variations such as gene overlaps, non-canonical start codons, and an unusual fused nd3 :: nd4L gene. Our findings highlight the applicability of genome skimming for phylogenetics and metagenomic insights, though success can vary due to biological and methodological factors. This approach proves to be a cost-effective and powerful tool for advancing sponge systematics, despite challenges in assembling hyperarranged mitogenomes in certain lineages, paving the way for broader genomic surveys in non-model organisms.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].