Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The EF-2 coding genes of the Archaea Pyrococcus woesei and Desulfurococcus mobilis were cloned and sequenced. Global phylogenies were inferred by alternative tree-making methods from available EF-2(G) sequence data and contrasted with phylogenies constructed from the more conserved but shorter EF-1 alpha(Tu) sequences. Both the monophyly (sensu Hennig) of Archaea and their subdivision into the kingdoms Crenarchaeota and Euryarchaeota are consistently inferred by analysis of EF-2(G) sequences, usually at a high bootstrap confidence level. In contrast, EF-1 alpha(Tu) phylogenies tend to be inconsistent with one another and show low bootstrap confidence levels. While evolutionary distance and DNA maximum parsimony analyses of EF-1 alpha(Tu) sequences do show archaeal monophyly, protein parsimony and DNA maximum-likelihood analyses of these data do not. In no case, however, do any of the tree topologies inferred from EF-1 alpha(Tu) sequence analyses receive significant bootstrap support.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Creti et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: