Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The earliest diverging extant scleractinian corals recovered by mitochondrial genomes

Abstract

Evolutionary reconstructions of scleractinian corals have a discrepant proportion of zooxanthellate reef-building species in relation to their azooxanthellate deep-sea counterparts. In particular, the earliest diverging “Basal” lineage remains poorly studied compared to “Robust” and “Complex” corals. The lack of data from corals other than reef-building species impairs a broader understanding of scleractinian evolution. Here, based on complete mitogenomes, the early onset of azooxanthellate corals is explored focusing on one of the most morphologically distinct families, Micrabaciidae. Sequenced on both Illumina and Sanger platforms, mitogenomes of four micrabaciids range from 19,048 to 19,542 bp and have gene content and order similar to the majority of scleractinians. Phylogenies containing all mitochondrial genes confirm the monophyly of Micrabaciidae as a sister group to the rest of Scleractinia. This topology not only corroborates the hypothesis of a solitary and azooxanthellate ancestor for the order, but also agrees with the unique skeletal microstructure previously found in the family. Moreover, the early-diverging position of micrabaciids followed by gardineriids reinforces the previously observed macromorphological similarities between micrabaciids and Corallimorpharia as well as its microstructural differences with Gardineriidae. The fact that both families share features with family Kilbuchophylliidae ultimately points towards a Middle Ordovician origin for Scleractinia.

Introduction

Scleractinian corals are renowned for their capacity to create spectacular shallow-water calcium carbonate reef structures. Azooxanthellate scleractinians—corals that do not establish a symbiotic relationship with dinoflagellates of the family Symbiodiniaceae1,2—total approximately the same number of extant zooxanthellate species of the order, but are not restricted to tropical, shallow-waters as the latter. The early evolutionary history of the order Scleractinia has been the subject of intense scientific debate. For example, the monophyly of this order has been challenged since the order Corallimorpharia was previously recovered as a clade nested within the main scleractinian lineages (“naked coral” hypothesis3). Nevertheless, it has been shown that such a corallimorpharian position was an artefact of the use of amino acid sequences in phylogenetic analyses4. Furthermore, the evolutionary history of the main reef builders has also attracted great attention as the “molecular revolution” challenged the long-established morphological systematics especially for the higher taxonomic ranks5,6,7,8,9,10,11. Originally, based on gross morphology, the order Scleractinia was divided into five12, or thirteen13 suborders. However, more recently, molecular data pointed to three main clades: “Basal”; “Complex”; and “Robust” corals4,11,14,15,16.

In contrast to widely accepted Triassic emergence of Scleractinia, divergence of the earliest scleractinian clade with extant representatives (families Micrabaciidae and Gardineriidae) was suggested to have occurred between the Ordovician and Silurian, around 425 million years ago (mya)14, or in the Silurian, 407 mya16. Although recovering a slightly later onset, a recent study by Quattrini and collaborators17 has also pointed to a Paleozoic origin for the order. Composed of exclusively azooxanthellate taxa18, representatives of Micrabaciidae share some morphological skeletal characters (septal bifurcations) with the Ordovician Kilbuchophylliidae (~ 460 mya), but otherwise represent a morphologically unique coral group19. On the other hand, gardineriids develop usually a thick, exclusively epithecal wall20 typical of some of the oldest known solitary Mesozoic (Middle Triassic) corals14 (~ 230 mya; Fig. 1a–c,f,g). Gardineriidae is also composed exclusively of azooxanthellate solitary corals, occurring from 2 to 1200 m depth21. Due to the unique micrabaciid microstructure14,19,22,23, which is not comparable to that of gardineriids (Fig. 1d,e,h,i) nor any other modern or fossil scleractinian coral, the phylogenetic position of micrabaciids within the “Basal” clade is intriguing. Known to occur from 15 m to as deep as 5000 m21,24, representatives of the Micrabaciidae are characterized by having free-living, solitary polyps with their porous skeleton completely enwrapped by soft tissue25. The oldest known micrabaciid fossil dates from shallow-water Mesozoic strata. However, with their skeletons enwrapped by tissue, like extant, shallow-water fungiids and turbinoliids26,27,28, it is possible that they are capable of automobility, an ability also documented in deep-water Flabellum29 and discussed to be present in Paleozoic corals, such as Palaeacis regularis from the Permian30. Furthermore, such ability together with no skeletal exposure to the environment, most likely favoured these organisms to occur in deepwater24 and to withstand the calcium-limited conditions31 at depths below the aragonite saturation horizon32. At the same time, calcification at great depths is physiologically demanding thus a trend towards skeleton lightening (increased porosity) is also observed in micrabaciid evolution.

Figure 1
figure1

Skeletal morphology and microstructure of representatives of the basal scleractinian clade. While micrabaciids typically have a light, lace-like skeleton with perforated walls and septa (ac, Letepsammia formosissima (Moseley, 1876) in distal, basal and lateral views, respectively), gardineriids have very robust coralla (fg, Gardineria hawaiiensis Vaughan, 1907) in distal and lateral views, respectively). In micrabaciids (here L. formosissima) Thickening Deposits (TDs) are composed of an irregular meshwork of fiber bundles oriented sub-parallel to the skeleton surface (d,e), whereas in gardineriids (G. hawaiiensis) TDs are arranged in small bundles of fibers oriented approximately perpendicular to the skeleton surface. Consequently, micrabaciid TDs show variable crystallographic orientation (d, seen as lack of larger areas of similar vivid interference colors in polarized light), whereas in gardineriids TDs are crystallographically ordered and larger areas of similar vivid interference colors are visible in polarized light (h). Thin-sections in polarized microscope views (d,h), and polished and lightly etched sections in Scanning Electron Microscopy views (e,i).

Overall, scleractinian mitogenomes have unique features, such as few transfer RNA genes (trnW, which is duplicated in Seriatopora and Stylophora, and trnM4,33,34), as well as the occurrence of introns in two protein-coding genes: nad5 and cox1. In nad5, this feature is present in all scleractinian mitogenomes determined to date3,35,36, while the cox1 intron is absent in some species and appears to have been regained at least five times in the “Robust” coral clade37,38. Regarding gene order, the same pattern seems to be shared among the majority of species sequenced to date35, except for Madrepora spp.35,39, Desmophyllum dianthus and D. pertusum35,36,40,41, and Solenosmilia variabilis (Fig. 2).

Figure 2
figure2

Gene content, order and sizes of Micrabaciidae mitogenomes. 5′ and 3′ indicate transcription direction and gene abbreviations are similar to those used in the text. For L. franki and L. formosissima, sizes are based on data obtained in five contigs and one incomplete contig, respectively.

To date, the majority of data used to investigate the evolutionary history of scleractinian corals is derived from shallow-water zooxanthellate species, limiting a broader understanding of several aspects of the evolution of the order11,15. Such a pattern has been reproduced for genomic and transcriptomic data. A search for scleractinian mitogenomes on Nucleotide database42 and genomic or transcriptomic data on Sequence Read Archive43 (excluding metagenomic data and both accessed on May, 2020) turned up 81 mitogenomes and 107 nuclear genomic/transcriptomic-level datasets from colonial and zooxanthellate species compared to 11 and 24, respectively, from solitary or azooxanthellate/facultative species. Among azooxanthellate species, only two mitogenomes (Fungiacyathus stephanus [JF825138] and Gardineria hawaiiensis [MT376619]) and seven nuclear (Balanophyllia elegans, Balanophyllia europaea, Caryophyllia arnoldi, Flabellum alabastrum, Paraconotrochus antarcticus, Rhizotrochus sp., Thecopsammia sp.) datasets were from solitary species. Also, apart from the mitogenomes presented herein, the only available data (mitochondrial and nuclear genomes or transcriptomes) from "Basal" representatives is resumed to the mitogenome of Gardineria hawaiiensis4 (Gardineriidae). Therefore, in this study, we refined the understanding of the evolutionary history of these early diverging lineages, more specifically by determining the mitogenomes of four micrabaciids (Letepsammia franki, L. superstes, L. formosissima and Rhombopsammia niphada). Together, the results presented here shed light on the Early Paleozoic origin of the order but also raise further questions on the discrepancy between mitochondrial and nuclear-based phylogenies within Scleractinia, a phenomenon detected for Cnidaria44 and other animal groups45,46.

Results

Generated raw reads ranged from 3,037,202 to 5,605,634 (MiSeq run) and corresponded to 26,584,520 and 29,910,418 (NextSeq run). Trimmed reads ranged from 2,767,107 to 4,840,710 and 14,566,182 to 15,824,076, respectively (Supplementary Table S1 online). Mitogenomes determined herein (Table 1) were each assembled in one contig, all above 19 kbp (Rhombopsammia niphada: 19,542 bp; Letepsammia formosissima: 19,048 bp; Letepsammia superstes: 19,073 bp; see number of reads mapped in each assembly on Supplementary Table S1 online), although that from L. formosissima lacks a part of the 16S ribosomal gene (probably around ~ 30 bp; Table 2). Sanger data from Letepsammia franki was assembled into five contigs comprising 18,206 bp in total and the only absent gene was trnW. Micrabaciidae mitogenomes have 37.8–37.9% GC levels, values slightly lower than that observed for G. hawaiiensis and Corallimorpharia (both with 39.7%). Nevertheless, “Complex” corals include a wide range of values, from 36.2% in Porites lobata to 40.5% in Pavona clavus (see Table 1).

Table 1 Lengths and GC contents of mitogenomes included in the phylogeny.
Table 2 Micrabaciidae mitochondrial gene content.

Gene number and order mirrors that observed in the majority of scleractinian corals (13 protein coding genes, two ribosomal RNA genes, and two transfer RNA genes), comprising two genes coding for ATP synthase subunits (atp6 and atp8), seven for NADH dehydrogenase subunits (nad4L and nad1–6), three for cytochrome c oxidase subunits (cox1–3), and one for cytochrome b oxidase (coxb). Cox1 has a 1027 bp long intron in all three Illumina sequenced species and the intron in nad5 includes 11 genes and is 11,627 (R. niphada), 11,155 (L. formosissima) and 11,158 (L. superstes) bp long (Fig. 2). Genes and intergenic regions (IGRs) are similar in length among R. niphada, L. formosissima and L. superstes in almost all cases, except for two genes (nad1 and 12S) and six IGRs (igr4, igr7, igr8, igr13, igr14, igr17; Table 2). Micrabaciid mitochondrial genes start codons are ATG (N = 9) and GTG (N = 4) (Table 2), while stop codons are more equitatively shared between TAA (N = 7) and TAG (N = 6). The evolutionary reconstruction using mitogenome data (Fig. 3) recovered the family Micrabaciidae as monophyletic with high statistical support (ML: 100%; BI: 1), and placed it as a sister group to all other scleractinians (i.e. Gardineriidae + “Robust” + “Complex”) with moderate to high support (ML: 83%; BI: 0.99). The family Gardineriidae was recovered as a lineage sister to “Complex” and “Robust” with moderate to high support (ML: 81%; BI: 0.99). In “Complex”, all nodes except one (Euphylliidae + Acroporidae; ML: 81%; BI: 0.99) displayed maximum values of support, while in “Robust” corals, six had non-full support values (inside family Merulinidae), being three of them with low (clade comprising Platygyra carnosa, Favites abdita and Dipsastraea rotumana; ML: 69% and 68%; BI: 0.99 for both) and moderate to high (Orbicella annularis + Cyphastrea serailia; ML: 87%; BI: 1) support values.

Figure 3
figure3

Maximum likelihood (ML) partitioned phylogeny reconstructed on RaxML using GTR model with gamma distribution and 1000 bootstrap replicates. Node support values (ML bootstrap and Bayesian posterior probabilities) are indicated only adjacent to nodes that did not display full statistical support.

Discussion

The phylogenetic analysis presented here indicates a paraphyly of the previously thought earliest diverging scleractinian “Basal” group11,14,15,16, represented by the two families Micrabaciidae and Gardineriidae. Based on all mitochondrial genes, the recovered phylogeny suggests that the micrabaciids were the first to diverge, being a sister group to all other scleractinians, including gardineriids. These results add further evidence for the hypothesis of solitary azooxanthellate corals as origin for the group.

Despite its crucial relevance for improving our understanding of the deep evolutionary patterns in Scleractinia, phylogenetic analyses have been based on limited data from a few partial genes (majoritarily cox1, 16S rDNA, 18S rDNA and 28S rDNA14,15,16). Only recently, using 933 loci (278,819 bp) captured with a targeted-enrichment approach, Quattrini et al.17 recovered the family Micrabaciidae as the first diverging lineage within “Robust” corals. Nevertheless, they lack representatives of Gardineriidae or other exclusively deep-water azooxanthellate families, such as Deltocyathidae and Anthemiphylliidae. On one hand, Anthozoa mitochondrial genes tend to evolve at slower rates in comparison with other metazoans47,48, thus favouring their application to investigate Scleractinia relationships through deep time or among taxonomic ranks above genus. On the other hand, mitogenomes may be genetically saturated, making them problematic for studying deeper levels of relationship inside Cnidaria (e.g. class level44). Therefore, sequencing of more mitogenomes and tests for saturation will elucidate the utility of mitochondrial genes in clarifying deep phylogenies within Scleractinia.

In general, micrabaciid mitogenomes have similar sizes to those of G. hawaiiensis and some “Complex” corals (e.g. Tubastraea coccinea, Dendrophyllia arbuscula, Fungiacyathus stephanus, and Pseudosiderastrea tayamai; Table 1). Among the mitogenomes sequenced herein, differences in length were mainly due to IGR sizes rather than among genes. A similar length variation pattern has previously been observed for the entire order and supports our findings for this family35. At 19,542 bp (Fig. 2), R. niphada holds the longest Scleractinia mitogenome known to date, followed by two Pseudosiderastrea species with 19,475 bp49. Micrabaciids were expected to bear long mitogenomes (> 19 kbp) based on their phylogenetic placement since the mitogenome of Gardineria hawaiiensis is 19,429 bp long4 and the overall size of scleractinian mitogenomes appears to be shrinking in relation to Corallimorpharia (between 1 and 6 kbp) and also within the order (i.e. “Robust” corals have 2–3 kbp shorter mitogenomes than “Complex” corals). Nevertheless, a clear pattern is still not evident in the class Anthozoa as a whole. While octocorals seem to present a narrower range of variation regarding mitogenome size (18 to 19.8 kbp50,51), hexacorals show a broader range. Actiniarian mitogenomes vary between 16 and 20 kbp, which is close to that observed in scleractinians52,53. Antipatharia ranges from 18 to 20 kbp54,55,56 and Zoantharia includes 20-kbp long mitogenomes, similar to Corallimorpharia57,58.

Different from size correlations, the recovered topology does not match previous reconstructions that included “Basal” lineages11,14,15,59 (Fig. 3), with a few exceptions such as reconstructions based on 28S rDNA and mitochondrial 16S rDNA that recovered Micrabaciidae and Gardineriidae as a polytomy and a paraphyly, respectively14. Here, micrabaciids and gardineriids were recovered in a paraphyly, the former being the earliest to diverge. Notably, Micrabaciidae shares anatomical features in common with corallimorpharians, including the presence of a thick mesoglea60 and acrospheres positioned around and above the polyps61. The molecular discrepancy between Gardineriidae and Micrabaciidae is strongly supported by differences in microstructural organization of their skeleton. For example, although the presence of an epithecal wall is common in many fossil and extant scleractinians, its occurrence as the only wall of the corallum, like in gardineriids, is exclusive in modern corals, but seems to have been a more common feature in early Mesozoic corals20,62. In contrast to the Gardineriidae skeletal thickening deposits (TD) (i.e. bundles of fibers arranged perpendicularly to the growing surfaces), micrabaciid TD are shaped in form of chip-like fiber bundles, sub-parallel to the skeletal surfaces, creating an irregular meshwork within the skeleton, which is not comparable with any microstructural organization from other modern or fossil scleractinian14,19. Because distinct patterns of TD organization are highly conservative traits in the evolution of scleractinian corals63, a unique micrabaciid fine-scale skeletal organization clearly suggests a long-period of independent evolutionary history in relation to gardineriids. On the other hand, although microstructural organization of Ordovician kilbuchophyllids is unknown (these fossils occur as moulds), these Paleozoic corals with scleractinian pattern of septal insertion had an epithecal wall (somewhat similar to gardineriids), and a pattern of bifurcations of higher septal cycles similar to micrabaciids. Together, these morphological characteristics allied to the molecular based phylogeny point towards a common and deep Paleozoic root for the order Scleractinia.

The early divergence of the azooxanthellate, solitary, deep-water micrabaciids and gardineriids (also supported by Stolarski et al.14 and Kitahara et al.15) contrasts with some hypotheses for whether first scleractinians were symbiotic and if they inhabited shallow or deep water environments64. In fact, Campoy and colleagues16 used four markers (18S rDNA, 28S rDNA, 16S rDNA and cox1) and 513 scleractinian coral species from almost all extant families and hypothesized that the first scleractinian would have been azooxanthellate and solitary. Nonetheless, symbiosis with zooxanthellae was widespread in Triassic corals65 and there is some degree of disagreement about it being lost and reappearing a few times64,66 or being gained only once during scleractinian evolution16. In contrast, it appears that coloniality was the first one to be gained and there is an agreement that it was lost and gained more than once16,64 and even the presence of multiple mouths in one polyp seems to be a labile trait in some families of this order as well (e.g. Dendrophylliidae66 and Fungiidae67,68).

Interestingly, all Paleozoic purported scleractiniamorph corals (i.e. Kilbuchophyllia, Houchangocyathus, and possibly Numidiaphyllum) were solitary polyps or had a loosely constructed phaceloid growth form (see Scrutton69; Ezaki70,71,72). Due to the several similarities with living solitary azooxanthellate scleractinians69,72, these aforementioned corals were purported to be azooxanthellate. Also, coral-zooxanthellae symbiosis has been established around 14 mya after the P/T boundary65,73, and although diagenetic conditions preclude unambiguous determination of a symbiotic or asymbiotic condition in Paleozoic corals, azooxanthellate and solitary lineages of living corals are the first to diverge in recent evolutionary reconstructions of the order Scleractinia. Such pattern is not limited to Micrabaciidae and Gardineriidae, but includes some lineages within “Complex” and “Robust” corals11,14,15,74. Examples are the families Anthemiphylliidae and Deltocyathidae in “Robust” and Fungiacyathidae, Turbinoliidae and Flabellidae in “Complex”11,14,15,16,74, showing that both clades present azooxanthellate deep-sea corals as first lineages to diverge. Hence, it would be more parsimonious to assume that the origin of the order is more likely azooxanthellate and solitary. Considering the coral fossil gap observed during the Lower Triassic, corals may have survived as azooxanthellate taxa living in the deep sea, as proposed by Ezaki70, and are too rare to be detected in the fossil record after the end-Permian extinction, as suggested by Stanley and Fautin75.

In terms of evolution inside Micrabaciidae, the recovered topology reinforces the observations made by Owens76 that R. niphada may be an intermediate species between Rhombopsammia and Letepsammia and, therefore, the first cycle septal solidity in the former and the total number of septa might not grant the split of both genera. Additional data from the remaining micrabaciid genera (i.e. Leptopenus and Stephanophyllia) will help to clarify such relationship and may shed light on deep-sea adaptations among scleractinian corals.

Methods

Specimens belonging to four species of the family Micrabaciidae (Letepsammia formosissima (Moseley, 1876): IK-2012-3802; L. franki Owens, 1984: IK-2012-3748; L. superstes (Ortmann, 1888): IK-2012-3754; and Rhombopsammia niphada Owens, 1986: IK-2012-3832) were sourced from the Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (Paris, France) Cnidaria collection. Total genomic DNA extraction was performed using the DNeasy Blood and Tissue kit (Qiagen) and libraries for Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) were prepared using TruSeq DNA Nano library preparation kit (Illumina; one library per species, based on one sample each). Since DNA from R. niphada was particularly degraded, Covaris shearing parameters were changed for this sample according to manufacturer suggestions (duty cycle: 5%; duration: 70 s). Moreover, in order to avoid adapter-dimer formation, adapters were diluted (3×) and the number of cycles at the PCR step was set to 12 cycles, following Illumina recommendations. Library concentrations were quantified on a Qubit 2.0 fluorometer and size distributions were assessed on a Bioanalyzer (Agilent). Samples were pooled with other libraries and sequenced on two different MiSeq v3 2 × 300 bp runs (L. formosissima in a run with other seven libraries and L. superstes and R. niphada in a different run with other eight). The same libraries from species L. superstes and R. niphada were also included on a NextSeq v2 High Output 2 × 75 bp pooled run with 16 samples in total. Illumina sequencing was performed at the Genome Investigation and Analysis Laboratory of the Centro de Facilidades para a Pesquisa, University of São Paulo. Raw sequences were trimmed using Trimmomatic77 under default settings, and the trimmed reads were used to assemble mitogenomes using MITObim78. Complete assembly of mitogenomes was ascertained by a circular mitogenome recovered, as determined by circules.py78. Assembled mitogenomes were then annotated by MITOS279. Protein coding genes with start or stop codons that did not match the mold/coelenterate mitochondrial genetic code were inspected for the presence of suitable codons before the beginning or after the end of their annotations and re annotated accordingly. Data from previous attempts to sequence Micrabaciidae mitogenomes by primer walking (using the same samples; primer sequences and PCR settings from Lin et al.74) were used to refine R. niphada and L. formosissima assemblies. Data for L. franki were generated by Sanger sequencing followed by editing and assembling in Sequencher80.

A selection of published mitogenomes (Table 1) was downloaded from GenBank and re-annotated on MITOS2. Nucleotide sequences were aligned by gene (11 PCGss, 2 rRNAs and 2 tRNAS) or exon for multi-exon genes (i.e. nad5 and cox1) in MAFFT v7 using L-INS-i algorithm81. Alignments were tested for substitution saturation on DAMBE v7.0.1282. In saturated alignments, the third codon position nucleotide was removed and tested for saturation again. Only non-saturated alignments were concatenated using catsequences (https://github.com/ChrisCreevey/catsequences) and the final matrix is available at Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4133805). For phylogenetic reconstructions, both maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI) methods were used. The matrix was partitioned by either gene or exon in multi-exon genes. The former was carried out in RAxML v8.2.1283 with 1000 bootstrap replicates and 100 random starting trees (GTR + G model). The latter was performed in MrBayes v3.2.784 on CIPRES portal85, after searching for the best substitution model for each alignment using Bayesian Information Criterion on jModelTest286 (run on CIPRES portal). Two Markov chain Monte Carlo runs with four chains each were run for 20 million generations, sampling once every 1000 trees, and discarding the first 30% of them as burn-in, following run convergence check in Tracer v1.7.187.

Data availability

The data underlying this article are available in the GenBank Nucleotide Database at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/ and can be accessed with accessions MT705247, MT706034, MT706035 and MT706036–MT706040. The alignment used for phylogenetic reconstructions is available in Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4133805.

References

  1. 1.

    Trench, R. K. Microalgal-invertebrate symbioses: A review. Endocytobiosis Cell Res. 9, 135–175 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    LaJeunesse, T. C. et al. Systematic revision of Symbiodiniaceae highlights the antiquity and diversity of coral endosymbionts. Curr. Biol. 28, 2570–2580 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Medina, M., Collins, A. G., Takaoka, T. L., Kuehl, J. V. & Boore, J. L. Naked corals: Skeleton loss in Scleractinia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 9096–9100 (2006).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kitahara, M. V. et al. The “Naked Coral” hypothesis revisited: Evidence for and against scleractinian monophyly. PLoS ONE 9, e94774. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094774 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Romano, S. & Palumbi, S. R. Evolution of scleractinian corals inferred from molecular systematics. Science 271, 640–642 (1996).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Chen, C. A., Wallace, C. C. & Wolstenholme, J. Analysis of the mitochondrial 12S rRNA gene supports a two-clade hypothesis of the evolutionary history of scleractinian corals. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 23, 137–149 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Fukami, H. et al. Conventional taxonomy obscures deep divergence between Pacific and Atlantic corals. Nature 427, 832–835 (2004).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Benzoni, F. et al. Debating phylogenetic relationships of the scleractinian Psammocora: Molecular and morphological evidences. Contrib. Zool. 76, 35–54 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Fukami, H. et al. Mitochondrial and nuclear genes suggest that stony corals are monophyletic but most families of stony corals are not (Order Scleractinia, Class Anthozoa, Phylum Cnidaria). PLoS ONE 3, e3222. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003222 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Huang, D., Licuanan, W. Y., Baird, A. H. & Fukami, H. Cleaning up the ‘Bigmessidae’: Molecular phylogeny of scleractinian corals from Faviidae, Merulinidae, Pectiniidae and Trachyphylliidae. BMC Evol. Biol. 11, 37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-11-37 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kitahara, M. V., Fukami, H., Benzoni, F. & Huang, D. The new systematics of Scleractinia: Integrating molecular and morphological evidence. In The cnidaria, past, present and future (eds Goffredo, S. & Dubinsky, Z.) 41–59 (Springer International Publishing, Berlin, 2016).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Vaughan, T. W. & Wells, J. W. Revision of the suborders, families and genera of the Scleractinia. Spec. Pap. Geol. Soc. Am. 44, 1–394 (1943).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Veron, J. E. N. Corals in Space and Time: Biogeography and Evolution of the Scleractinia (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Stolarski, J. et al. The ancient evolutionary origins of Scleractinia revealed by azooxanthellate corals. BMC Evol. Biol. 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-11-316 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kitahara, M. V., Cairns, S. D., Stolarski, J., Blair, D. & Miller, D. A comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of the Scleractinia (Cnidaria, Anthozoa) based on mitochondrial CO1 sequence data. PLoS ONE 5, e11490. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011490 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Campoy, A. N. et al. The origin and correlated evolution of symbiosis and coloniality in scleractinian corals. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 461. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00461 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Quattrini, A. M. et al. Paleoclimate ocean conditions shaped the evolution of corals and their skeletal composition through deep time. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01291-1 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Cairns, S. D. Species richness of recent Scleractinia. Atoll. Res. Bull. 459, 1–46 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Janiszewska, K. et al. A unique skeletal microstructure of the deep-sea micrabaciid scleractinian corals. J. Morphol. 272, 191–203 (2011).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Stolarski, J. Gardineria: A scleractinian living fossil. Acta Palaeontol. Pol. 41, 339–367 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Cairns, S. D. Online appendix: Phylogenetic list of 722 valid recent azooxanthellate scleractinian species, with their junior synonyms and depth ranges in Cold-water corals: the biology and geology of deep-sea coral habitats (eds. Roberts, J. M., Wheeler, A., Freiwald, A. & Cairns, S. D.) 1–28; http://www.lophelia.org/images/stories/pdfs/Cold-water_Corals_Online_Appendix.pdf (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009).

  22. 22.

    Janiszewska, K., Jaroszewicz, J. & Stolarski, J. Skeletal ontogeny in Basal scleractinian micrabaciid corals. J. Morphol. 274, 243–257 (2013).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Janiszewska, K., Stolarski, J., Kitahara, M. V., Neuser, R. D. & Mazur, M. Microstructural disparity between basal micrabaciids and other Scleractinia: New evidence from Neogene Stephanophyllia. Lethaia. 48, 417–428 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Squires, D. F. The evolution of the deep-sea coral family Micrabaciidae. Stud. Trop. Oceanogr. 5, 502–510 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Cairns, S. D. Micrabaciidae Vaughan 1905 in The Tree of Life Web Project http://tolweb.org/Micrabaciidae/19116/2002.10.28 (2002).

  26. 26.

    Hoeksema, B. W. & Voogd, N. J. On the run: Free-living mushroom corals avoiding interaction with sponges. Coral Reefs 31, 455–459 (2012).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Hoeksema, B. W. & Bongaerts, P. Mobility and self-righting by a free-living mushroom coral through pulsed inflation. Mar. Biodivers. 46, 521–524 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Sentoku, A., Tokuda, Y. & Ezaki, Y. Burrowing hard corals occurring on the sea floor since 80 million years ago. Sci. Rep. 6, 24355. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24355 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Buhl-Mortensen, L., Mortensen, P. B., Armsworthy, S. & Jackson, D. Field observations of Flabellum spp. and laboratory study of the behaviour and respiration of Flabellum alabastrum. Bull. Mar. Sci. 81, 543–552 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Plusquellec, Y., Webb, G. E. & Hoeksema, B. W. Automobility in Tabulata, Rugosa, and extant scleractinian analogues: Stratigraphic and paleogeographic distribution of Paleozoic mobile corals. J. Paleontol. 73, 985–1001 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Owens, J. M. Evolutionary trends in the Micrabaciidae: An argument in favor of preadaptation. Geologos. 11, 87–93 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Guinotte, J. M. et al. Will human-induced changes in seawater chemistry alter the distribution of deep-sea scleractinian corals?. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4, 141–146 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Chen, C., Chiou, C. Y., Dai, C. F. & Chen, C. A. Unique mitogenomic features in the scleractinian family Pocilloporidae (Scleractinia: Astrocoeniina). Mar. Biotechnol. 10, 538–553 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Chen, C., Dai, C. F., Plathong, S., Chiou, C. Y. & Chen, C. A. The complete mitochondrial genomes of needle corals, Seriatopora spp. (Scleractinia: Pocilloporidae): An idiosyncratic atp8, duplicated trnW gene, and hypervariable regions used to determine species phylogenies and recently diverged populations. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 46, 19–33 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Lin, M. F. et al. Mitochondrial genome rearrangements in the Scleractinia/Corallimorpharia complex: Implications for coral phylogeny. Genome Biol. Evol. 6, 1086–1095 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Addamo, A. A. et al. Merging scleractinian genera: The overwhelming genetic similarity between solitary Desmophyllum and colonial Lophelia. BMC Evol. Biol. 16, 108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-016-0654-8 (2016).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Celis, J. S. et al. Evolutionary and biogeographical implications of degraded LAGLIDADG endonuclease functionality and group I intron occurrence in stony corals (Scleractinia) and mushroom corals (Corallimorpharia). PLoS ONE 12, e0173734. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173734 (2017).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Chuang, Y. et al. Loss and gain of group I introns in the mitochondrial cox1 gene of the Scleractinia (Cnidaria; Anthozoa). Zool. Stud. 56, 9. https://doi.org/10.6620/ZS.2017.56-09 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Lin, M. F. et al. Novel organization of the mitochondrial genome in the deep-sea coral, Madrepora oculata (Hexacorallia, Scleractinia, Oculinidae) and its taxonomic implications. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 65, 323–328 (2012).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Emblem, A., Karlsen, B. O., Evertsen, J. & Johansen, S. D. Mitogenome rearrangement in the cold-water scleractinian coral Lophelia pertusa (Cnidaria, Anthozoa) involves a long-term evolving group I intron. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 61, 495–503 (2011).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Flot, J. F., Dahl, M. & André, C. Lophelia pertusa corals from the Ionian and Barents seas share identical nuclear ITS2 and near-identical mitochondrial genome sequences. BMC Res. Notes. 6, 144. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-6-144 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleotide https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/ (2020).

  43. 43.

    Leinonen, R., Sugawara, H. & Shumway, M. The sequence read archive. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D19–D21 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Pratlong, M., Rancurel, C., Pontarotti, P. & Aurelle, D. Monophyly of Anthozoa (Cnidaria): Why do nuclear and mitochondrial phylogenies disagree?. Zool. Scr. 46, 363–371 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Thielsch, A., Kneli, A., Mohammadyari, A., Petrusek, A. & Schwenk, K. Divergent clades of cryptic species? Mito-nuclear discordance in a Daphnia species complex. BMC Evol. Biol. 17, 2–27 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Campillo, L. C., Burns, K. J., Moyle, R. G. & Manthey, J. D. Mitochondrial genomes of the bird genus Piranga: Rates of sequence evolution, and discordance between mitochondrial and nuclear markers. Mitochondrial DNA B. 4, 2566–2569 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Shearer, T. L., van Oppen, M. J. H., Romano, S. L. & Wörheide, G. Slow mitochondrial DNA sequence evolution in the Anthozoa (Cnidaria). Mol. Ecol. 11, 2475–2487 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Huang, D., Meier, R., Todd, P. A. & Chou, L. M. Slow mitochondrial COI sequence evolution at the base of the metazoan tree and its implications for DNA barcoding. J. Mol. Evol. 66, 167–174 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Chuang, Y. & Chen, C. A. The complete mitochondrial genomes of Pseudosiderastrea spp (Cnidaria, Scleractinia, Siderastreidae). Mitochondrial DNA A DNA Mapp. Seq. Anal. 27, 4065–4066 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Brockman, S. A. & McFadden, C. S. The mitochondrial genome of Paraminabea aldersladei (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Octocorallia) supports intramolecular recombination as the primary mechanism of gene rearrangement in octocoral mitochondrial genomes. Genome Biol Evol. 4, 994–1006 (2012).

    PubMed  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Hogan, R. I., Hopkins, K., Wheeler, A. J., Allcock, A. L. & Yesson, C. Novel diversity in mitochondrial genomes of deep-sea Pennatulacea (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Octocorallia). Mitochondrial DNA A DNA Mapp. Seq. Anal. 30, 764–777 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Beagley, C. T., Okimoto, R. & Wolstenholme, R. The mitochondrial genome of the sea anemone Metridium senile (Cnidaria): Introns, a paucity of tRNA genes, and a near-standard genetic code. Genetics 148, 1091–1108 (1998).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Emblem, A. et al. Sea anemones possess dynamic mitogenome structures. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 75, 184–193 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Brugler, M. R. & France, S. C. The complete mitochondrial genome of the black coral Chrysopathes formosa (Cnidaria: Anthozoa: Antipatharia) supports classification of antipatharians within the subclass Hexacorallia. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 42, 776–788 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Kayal, E., Roure, B., Philippe, H., Collins, A. G. & Lavrov, D. V. Cnidarian phylogenetic relationships as revealed by mitogenomics. BMC Evol. Biol. 13, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-13-5 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Sinniger, F. & Pawlowski, J. The partial mitochondrial genome of Leiopathes glaberrima (Hexacorallia: Antipatharia) and the first report of the presence of an intron in COI in black corals. Galaxea 11, 21–26 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Chi, S. I. & Johansen, S. D. Zoantharian mitochondrial genomes contain unique complex group I introns and highly conserved intergenic regions. Gene 628, 24–31 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Sinniger, F., Chevaldonné, P. & Pawlowski, J. Mitochondrial genome of Savalia savaglia (Cnidaria, Hexacorallia) and early metazoan phylogeny. J. Mol. Evol. 64, 196–203 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Huang, D. Threatened reef corals of the world. PLoS ONE 7, e34459. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034459 (2012).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Hartog, J. C. Caribbean shallow water Corallimorpharia. Zool. Verh. 176, 1–83 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Moseley, H. N. X. V. On new forms of Actiniaria dredged in the deep sea; with a description of certain pelagic surface-swimming species. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 1, 295–305 (1877).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Stolarski, J. 3-Dimensional micro- and nanostructural characteristics of the scleractinian corals skeleton: A biocalcification proxy. Acta Palaeontol. Pol. 48, 497–530 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Stolarski, J. et al. A unique coral biomineralization pattern has resisted 40 million years of major ocean chemistry change. Sci. Rep. 6, 27579. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep27579 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Barbeitos, M. S., Romano, S. L. & Lasker, H. R. Repeated loss of coloniality and symbiosis in scleractinian corals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 11877–11882 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Frankowiak, K. et al. Photosymbiosis and the expansion of shallow-water corals. Sci. Adv. 2, e1601122. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601122 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Arrigoni, R. et al. A phylogeny reconstruction of the Dendrophylliidae (Cnidaria, Scleractinia) based on molecular and micromorphological criteria, and its ecological implications. Zool. Scr. 43, 661–688 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Gittenberger, A., Reijnen, B. T. & Hoeksema, B. W. A molecularly based phylogeny reconstruction of mushroom corals (Scleractinia: Fungiidae) with taxonomic consequences and evolutionary implications for life history traits. Contrib. Zool. 80, 107–132 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Benzoni, F. et al. Phylogenetic position and taxonomy of Cycloseris explanulata and C. wellsi (Scleractinia: Fungiidae): Lost mushroom corals find their way home. Contrib. Zool. 81, 125–146 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Scrutton, C. Palaeozoic corals: Their evolution and palaeoecology. Geol. Today. 15, 184–193 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Ezaki, Y. The Permian coral Numidiaphyllum: New insights into anthozoan phylogeny and Triassic scleractinian origins. Palaeontology 40, 1–14 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Ezaki, Y. Paleozoic Scleratinia: Progenitors or extinct experiments?. Paleobiology. 24, 227–234 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Ezaki, Y. Palaeoecological and phylogenetic implications of a new scleractiniamorph genus from Permian sponge reefs, South China. Palaeontology 43, 199–217 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Stanley, G. D. & Swart, P. K. Evolution of the coral-zooxanthellae symbiosis during the Triassic: A geochemical approach. Paleobiology. 21, 179–199 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Lin, M. F., Luzon, K. S., Licuanan, W. Y., Ablan-Lagman, M. C. & Chen, C. A. Seventy-four universal primers for characterizing the complete mitochondrial genomes of scleractinian corals (Cnidaria: Anthozoa). Zool Stud. 50, 513–524 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Stanley, G. D. & Fautin, D. G. The origins of modern corals. Science 291, 1913–1914 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Owens, J. M. Rhombopsammia, a new genus of the family Micrabaciidae (Coelenterata: Scleractinia). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 99, 248–256 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Hahn, C., Bachmann, L. & Chevreux, B. Reconstructing mitochondrial genomes directly from genomic next-generation sequencing reads—A baiting and iterative mapping approach. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, e129. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt371 (2013).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Bernt, M. et al. MITOS: Improved de novo metazoan mitochondrial genome annotation. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 69, 313–319 (2013).

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Gene Codes Corporation. Sequencher: DNA Sequencing Software http://www.genecodes.com/sequencher (2017).

  81. 81.

    Katoh, K., Rozewicki, J. & Yamada, K. MAFFT online service: Multiple sequence alignment, interactive sequence choice and visualization. Brief Bioinform. 20, 1160–1166 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Xia, X. DAMBE7: New and improved tools for data analysis in molecular biology and evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1550–1552 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30, 1312–1313 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Ronquist, F. & Huelsenbeck, J. P. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 19, 1572–1574 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Miller, M. A., Pfeiffer, W. & Schwartz, T. Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees in Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE 2010) 45–53 (IEEE, New York, 2010).

  86. 86.

    Posada, D. jModelTest: Phylogenetic model averaging. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25, 1253–1256 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Rambaut, A., Drummond, A. J., Xie, D., Baele, G. & Suchard, M. A. Posterior summarisation in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7. Syst. Biol. 67, 901–904 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP #2017/11615-7 and #2018/19661-0 to IGLS, and #2014/01332-0 to MVK). IGLS is thankful to the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES Finance Code 001). MVK also thank the support of the National Research Council (CNPq #301436/2018-5). The authors would also like to thank the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle (MNHN, France) for specimens, as well as the Genome Investigation and Analysis Laboratory of the University of São Paulo (Genial CEFAP-USP), where library preparation and sequencing took place. The computational work for this article was partially performed on resources of the National Supercomputing Centre, Singapore (https://www.nscc.sg).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

I.G.L.S. and M.V.K. conceived the experiment; I.G.L.S. and K.C.C.C. extracted/sequenced DNA, and analysed data; Z.B.R.Q. and D.H. contributed to data analysis; J.S. provided data on skeletal microstructures. All authors interpreted results and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabela G. L. Seiblitz.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seiblitz, I.G.L., Capel, K.C.C., Stolarski, J. et al. The earliest diverging extant scleractinian corals recovered by mitochondrial genomes. Sci Rep 10, 20714 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77763-y

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing