Additional file 1 of Geography, phylogeny and host switch drive the coevolution of parasitic Gyrodactylus flatworms and their hosts
Creators: name: Lei, Hong-Peng
name: Jakovlić, Ivan
name: Zhou, Shun
name: Liu, Xiang
name: Yan, Chuan
name: Jin, Xiao
name: Wang, Bo
name: Li, Wen-Xiang
name: Wang, Gui-Tang
name: Zhang, Dong
Publisher: name: figshare
Year: 2024
Subjects: subject: Genetics
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: Evolutionary Biology

description: Additional file 1: Figure S1: The complete mitochondrial genomes of Gyrodactylus sp. L1 and Gyrodactylus sp. L4. Figure S2: Gyrodactylid phylograms inferred using the PHMITOS dataset. Panel A: phylogenetic tree constructed using the maximum likelihood method; panel B: phylogenetic tree constructed using the Bayesian inference method. Figure S3: Host phylograms inferred using the PHMITOS dataset. Panel A: phylogenetic tree constructed using the maximum likelihood method; panel B: phylogenetic tree constructed using Bayesian inference method. Figure S4: Gyrodactylid phylogram inferred using the ML analysis and P18SHMITO dataset. Paragyractylus variegatus was used as the outgroup. Figure S5: Gyrodactylid phylogram inferred using the ML analysis and P18SHMITO dataset. The clade comprising Gyrodactylus laevis, G. pecotti, G. magnificus, G. phoxini, G. elegans, and G. prostae was used as the outgroup. Figure S6: Gyrodactylid phylogram inferred using the BI analysis and P18SHMITO dataset. Figure S7: Host phylogram inferred using the ML analysis and P18SHMITO dataset. From left to right: a tree with bootstrap values = 100% shown as pentagram symbols at nodes, species names, and taxonomy (family, order, and class, respectively). Figure S8: host phylogram inferred using the BI analysis and P18SHMITO dataset. From left to right: a tree with bootstrap values = 1.0 shown as pentagram symbols at nodes, species names, and taxonomy (family, order, and class, respectively). Figure S9: Treemap 3 tanglegram of the PHMITOS dataset (ML topology). Red dots indicate nodes that exhibited significant congruence between host and parasite topologies. The intensity of the color of the dot is positively correlated to the significance (p value) of congruence. Figure S10: Treemap 3 tanglegram of the PHMITOS dataset (BI topology). Red dots indicate nodes that exhibited significant congruence between host and parasite topologies. The intensity of the color of the dot is positively correlated to the significance (p value) of congruence. Figure S11: Treemap 3 tanglegram of the P18SHMITO dataset (ML topology). Red dots indicate nodes that exhibited significant congruence between host and parasite topologies. The intensity of the color of the dot is positively correlated to the significance (p value) of congruence. Figure S12: Treemap 3 tanglegram of the P18SHMITO dataset (BI topology). Red dots indicate nodes that exhibited significant congruence between host and parasite topologies. The intensity of the color of the dot is positively correlated to the significance (p value) of congruence. Figure S13: Jane 4 tanglegrams of the PHMITOS dataset (ML topology). Figure S14: Jane 4 tanglegrams of the PHMITOS dataset (BI topology). Figure S15: Jane 4 tanglegrams of the P18SHMITO dataset (ML topology). Figure S16: Jane 4 tanglegrams of the P18SHMITO dataset (BI topology). Figure S17: Panel A: The probability that a host pair with a gyrodactylid in common has a particular patristic phylogenetic distance; panel B: probability that a gyrodactylid pair with a host in common has a particular patristic phylogenetic distance. Figure S18: Linear fit trendline of the basic host specificity (Y) and phylogenetic host specificity (X).