Corrigendum: Diversity of Mesopelagic Fishes in the Southern Ocean – A Phylogeographic Perspective Using DNA Barcoding
- 1Laboratory of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Genomics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- 2UMR 7205 ISYEB CNRS-MNHN-Sorbonne Universite-EPHE, Département Systématique et Évolution, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France
- 3Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft, United Kingdom
- 4UMR 720 BOREA, Département Milieux et Peuplements Aquatiques, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France
- 5Centre for Biodiversity Genomics, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
- 6Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
- 7OD Nature, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium
by Christiansen, H., Dettai, A., Heindler, F. M., Collins, M. A., Duhamel, G., Hautecoeur, M., et al. (2018). Front. Ecol. Evol. 6:120. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2018.00120
In the original article, there was an error. The sequences of Symbolophorus boops included from the Barcode of Life Datasystems (BOLD) in our analyses were likely misidentified, which was kindly brought to our attention by P. A. Hulley.
A correction has been made to the last sentence of the Abstract:
However, we highlight potential (pseudo-)cryptic or unrecognized species in Gymnoscopelus bolini, Lampanyctus achirus, and the non-myctophid genus Bathylagus.
A correction has been made to the Discussion, Sub-section Phylogeny and Phylogeography of Southern Ocean Mesopelagic Fishes, Paragraph 6:
The available sequences identified as Symbolophorus boops (BOLD references DSFSE476-08 to DSFSE480-08 and DSFSG260-10) cluster apart from the two other Symbolophorus clades resolved in our COI tree (one composed of S. californiensis, S. reversus, S. evermanni, Symbolophorus sp., and S. rufinus and the other composed of S. barnardi and S. veranyi; Figure 2). Instead these sequences settle within the Diaphinae (sensu Martin et al., 2017). Unfortunately we discovered a posteriori that the COI sequences included here as S. boops were likely misidentified on BOLD. These sequences are probably from a Diaphus species (P. A. Hulley, pers. comm.) currently also not present on BOLD, but the specimens are in poor condition, preventing definite identification. The correction has been transmitted to the BOLD database. Other studies that included genetic data proposed that Symbolophorus is closer related to Myctophum, Hygophum, and other genera, as opposed to Diaphinae, but they all lacked specimens of S. boops (Poulsen et al., 2013; Denton, 2014; Martin et al., 2017). Therefore, we highly recommend the collection of further samples/sequences in order to resolve the phylogenetic position of S. boops, and to re-identify the specimens erroneously labeled as Symbolophorus boops. In fact, the entire genus would benefit from a detailed systematic revision as already noted by Wisner (1976).
A correction has been made to the seventh sentence of the Conclusions:
With this study we substantially extend the DNA barcode library of Antarctic mesopelagic fish, particularly lanternfishes. The combination of morphological and molecular identification led to confident species level identification in 281 out of 299 cases. Several misidentifications or otherwise uncertain samples were identified in the database. Overall, DNA barcode libraries provide a robust reference dataset for specimen identification, especially to the rescue of fragile morphological characters. As expected, the mitochondrial COI and nuclear rh1 genetic markers were not sufficient to resolve deep phylogenetic relationships. However, our results are largely congruent with recent phylogenetic studies of the family. Some of our findings suggest the importance of further study or re-identification, e.g., of Symbolophorus boops. In addition, we highlight potential (pseudo-)cryptic or unrecognized species and recommend further investigation of Gymnoscopelus bolini, two specific Gymnoscopelus specimens (nominally identified as G. piabilis and G. nicholsi), Lampanyctus achirus and the non- myctophid genus Bathylagus. The fact that myctophid species from at least three subfamilies are Southern Ocean species suggests that colonization and adaptation to this environment has occurred repeatedly. Overall, spatial divergence of species is rare in this family, potentially due to the enormous abundance of many myctophids and the homogenizing force of ocean currents. Finally, this study provides an overview of currently available Antarctic samples and associated levels of intraspecific diversity, which both may facilitate future ecological, phylogenetic, and evolutionary investigations of Southern Ocean myctophids, a fish family that surely warrants increased scientific attention.
Finally, in Table 2, the third row of the third column should read Protomyctophum luciferum instead of Porotomyctophum luciferum.
The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the remainder of the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Denton, J. S. (2014). Seven-locus molecular phylogeny of Myctophiformes (Teleostei; Scopelomorpha) highlights the utility of the order for studies of deep-sea evolution. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 76, 270–292. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2014.02.009
Martin, R. P., Olson, E. E., Girard, M. G., Smith, W. L., and Davis, M. P. (2017). Light in the darkness: new perspective on lanternfish relationships and classification using genomic and morphological data. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 121, 71–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2017.12.029
Poulsen, J. Y., Byrkjedal, I., Willassen, E., Rees, D., Takeshima, H., Satoh, T. P., et al. (2013). Mitogenomic sequences and evidence from unique gene rearrangements corroborate evolutionary relationships of myctophiformes (Neoteleostei). BMC Evol. Biol. 13:111. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-13-111
Keywords: marine biodiversity, adaptation, Antarctic, COI, Myctophidae, phylogeny, rhodopsin
Citation: Christiansen H, Dettai A, Heindler FM, Collins MA, Duhamel G, Hautecoeur M, Steinke D, Volckaert FAM and Van de Putte AP (2018) Corrigendum: Diversity of Mesopelagic Fishes in the Southern Ocean – A Phylogeographic Perspective Using DNA Barcoding. Front. Ecol. Evol. 6:162. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2018.00162
Received: 22 September 2018; Accepted: 27 September 2018;
Published: 02 November 2018.
Edited and reviewed by: Oana Moldovan, Emil Racovita Institute of Speleology, Romania
Copyright © 2018 Christiansen, Dettai, Heindler, Collins, Duhamel, Hautecoeur, Steinke, Volckaert and Van de Putte. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Henrik Christiansen, email@example.com