Search for: All records

Synopsis The proliferation of genomic resources for Chelicerata in the past 10 years has revealed that the evolution of chelicerate genomes is more dynamic than previously thought, with multiple waves of ancient whole genome duplications affecting separate lineages. Such duplication events are fascinating from the perspective of evolutionary history because the burst of new gene copies associated with genome duplications facilitates the acquisition of new gene functions (neofunctionalization), which may in turn lead to morphological novelties and spur net diversification. While neofunctionalization has been invoked in several contexts with respect to the success and diversity of spiders, the overall impact of whole genome duplications on chelicerate evolution and development remains imperfectly understood. The purpose of this review is to examine critically the role of whole genome duplication on the diversification of the extant arachnid orders, as well as assess functional datasets for evidence of subfunctionalization or neofunctionalization in chelicerates. This examination focuses on functional data from two focal model taxa: the spider Parasteatoda tepidariorum, which exhibits evidence for an ancient duplication, and the harvestman Phalangium opilio, which exhibits an unduplicated genome. I show that there is no evidence that taxa with genome duplications are more successful than taxa with unduplicated genomes. I contend that evidence for sub- or neofunctionalization of duplicated developmental patterning genes in spiders is indirect or fragmentary at present, despite the appeal of this postulate for explaining the success of groups like spiders. Available expression data suggest that the condition of duplicated Hox modules may have played a role in promoting body plan disparity in the posterior tagma of some orders, such as spiders and scorpions, but functional data substantiating this postulate are critically missing. Spatiotemporal dynamics of duplicated transcription factors in spiders may represent cases of developmental system drift, rather than neofunctionalization. Developmental system drift may represent an important, but overlooked, null hypothesis for studies of paralogs in chelicerate developmental biology. To distinguish between subfunctionalization, neofunctionalization, and developmental system drift, concomitant establishment of comparative functional datasets from taxa exhibiting the genome duplication, as well as those that lack the paralogy, is sorely needed. 

Abstract Recent advances in higher‐level invertebrate phylogeny have leveraged shared features of genomic architecture to resolve contentious nodes across the tree of life. Yet, the interordinal relationships within Chelicerata have remained recalcitrant given competing topologies in recent molecular analyses. As such, relationships between topologically unstable orders remain supported primarily by morphological cladistic analyses. Solifugae, one such unstable chelicerate order, has long been thought to be the sister group of Pseudoscorpiones, forming the clade Haplocnemata, on the basis of eight putative morphological synapomorphies. The discovery, however, of a shared whole genome duplication placing Pseudoscorpiones in Arachnopulmonata provides the opportunity for a simple litmus test evaluating the validity of Haplocnemata. Here, we present the first developmental transcriptome of a solifuge (Titanopuga salinarum) and survey copy numbers of the homeobox genes for evidence of systemic duplication. We find that over 70% of the identified homeobox genes inT. salinarumare retained in a single copy, while representatives of the arachnopulmonates retain orthologs of those genes as two or more copies. Our results refute the placement of Solifugae in Haplocnemata. Subsequent reevaluation of putative interordinal morphological synapomorphies among chelicerates reveals a high incidence of homoplasy, reversals, and inaccurate coding within Haplocnemata and other small clades, as well as Arachnida more broadly, suggesting existing morphological character matrices are insufficient to resolve chelicerate phylogeny.