AbstractThe eukaryote Tree of Life (eToL) depicts the relationships among all eukaryotic organisms; its root represents the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA) from which all extant complex lifeforms are descended1. Locating this root is crucial for reconstructing the features of LECA, both as the endpoint of eukaryogenesis and the start point for the evolution of the myriad complex traits underpinning the diversification of living eukaryotes. However, the position of the root remains contentious due to pervasive phylogenetic artefacts stemming from inadequate evolutionary models, poor taxon sampling and limited phylogenetic signal1. Here we estimate the root of the eToL with unprecedented resolution on the basis of a new, much larger, dataset of mitochondrial proteins that includes all known eukaryotic supergroups. Our analyses of a 100 taxon × 93 protein dataset with state-of-the-art phylogenetic models and an extensive evaluation of alternative hypotheses show that the eukaryotic root lies between two multi-supergroup assemblages: ‘Opimoda+’ and ‘Diphoda+’. This position is consistently supported across different models and robustness analyses. Notably, groups containing ‘typical excavates’ are placed on both sides of the root, suggesting the complex features of the ‘excavate’ cell architecture trace back to LECA. This study sheds light on the ancestral cells from which extant eukaryotes arose and provides a crucial framework for investigating the origin and evolution of canonical eukaryotic features.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access through your institution
Change institution
Buy or subscribe
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Learn more
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Learn more
Buy this article
Purchase on SpringerLink
Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Additional access options:
Log in
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Read our FAQs
Contact customer support
Fig. 1: Rooted phylogenies of eukaryotes estimated from mitochondrial proteins of alphaproteobacterial origin.Fig. 2: Likelihood estimation of candidate eukaryote roots across complex models.Fig. 3: Evaluating potential for LBA bias on simulated data.Fig. 4: The recovered root suggests the morphological features of ‘typical excavates’ are ancestral traits of LECA.
Data availability
All sequence alignments and phylogenetic trees are available at Figshare (https://figshare.com/s/59b28ecc0056dc8d0d03)34 and the accession codes for publicly available data used in these analyses are given in Supplementary Table 7. The data included in the accession codes can be found in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), the MMETSP database on the iMicrobe website https://www.imicrobe.us/#/projects/104 or the PhyloFisher v.1 dataset available at Figshare (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.15141900.v1)72 as indicated in Supplementary Table 7.
Code availability
Custom scripts have been deposited at Figshare (https://figshare.com/s/59b28ecc0056dc8d0d03)34.
ReferencesBurki, F., Roger, A. J., Brown, M. W. & Simpson, A. G. B. The new tree of eukaryotes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 43–55 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.08.008 (2020).Tikhonenkov, D. V. et al. Microbial predators form a new supergroup of eukaryotes. Nature 612, 714–719 (2022).Article
ADS
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Eme, L., Sharpe, S. C., Brown, M. W. & Roger, A. J. On the age of eukaryotes: evaluating evidence from fossils and molecular clocks. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 6, a016139 (2014).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Betts, H. C. et al. Integrated genomic and fossil evidence illuminates life’s early evolution and eukaryote origin. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1556–1562 (2018).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Strassert, J. F. H., Irisarri, I., Williams, T. A. & Burki, F. A molecular timescale for eukaryote evolution with implications for the origin of red algal-derived plastids. Nat. Commun. 12, 1879 (2021).Article
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Katz, L. A., Grant, J. R., Parfrey, L. W. & Burleigh, J. G. Turning the crown upside down: gene tree parsimony roots the eukaryotic tree of life. Syst. Biol. 61, 653–660 (2012).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Cerón-Romero, M. A., Fonseca, M. M., De Oliveira Martins, L., Posada, D. & Katz, L. A. Phylogenomic analyses of 2,786 genes in 158 lineages support a root of the eukaryotic tree of life between Opisthokonts and all other lineages. Genome Biol. Evol. 14, evac119 (2022).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Cavalier-Smith, T. Kingdoms Protozoa and Chromista and the eozoan root of the eukaryotic tree. Biol. Lett. 6, 342–345 (2010).Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Stechmann, A. & Cavalier-Smith, T. Rooting the eukaryote tree by using a derived gene fusion. Science 297, 89–91 (2002).Article
ADS
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Richards, T. A. & Cavalier-Smith, T. Myosin domain evolution and the primary divergence of eukaryotes. Nature 436, 1113–1118 (2005).Article
ADS
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Rogozin, I. B., Basu, M. K., Csürös, M. & Koonin, E. V. Analysis of rare genomic changes does not support the Unikont–Bikont phylogeny and suggests cyanobacterial symbiosis as the point of primary radiation of eukaryotes. Genome Biol. Evol. 1, 99–113 (2009).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Leonard, G. & Richards, T. A. Genome-scale comparative analysis of gene fusions, genefissions, and the fungal tree of life. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 21402–21407 (2012).Article
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Vosseberg, J. et al. Timing the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity with ancient duplications. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 92–100 (2021).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Eme, L. et al. Inference and reconstruction of the heimdallarchaeial ancestry of eukaryotes. Nature 618, 992–999 (2023).Article
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Pittis, A. A. & Gabaldón, T. Late acquisition of mitochondria by a host with chimaeric prokaryotic ancestry. Nature 531, 101–104 (2016).Article
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Roger, A. J., Muñoz-Gómez, S. A. & Kamikawa, R. The origin and diversification of mitochondria. Curr. Biol. 27, R1177–R1192 (2017).Muñoz-Gómez, S. A. et al. Site-and-branch-heterogeneous analyses of an expanded dataset favour mitochondria as sister to known Alphaproteobacteria. Nat. Ecol. Evolution 6, 253–262 (2022).Article
MATH
Google Scholar
Al Jewari, C. & Baldauf, S. L. An excavate root for the eukaryote Tree of Life. Sci. Adv. 9, eade4973 (2023).Article
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Derelle, R. & Lang, B. F. Rooting the eukaryotic tree with mitochondrial and bacterial proteins. Mol. Biol. Evol. 29, 1277–1289 (2012).Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Derelle, R. et al. Bacterial proteins pinpoint a single eukaryotic root. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E693–E699 (2015).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
He, D., Fiz-Palacios, O., Fu, C. J., Tsai, C. C. & Baldauf, S. L. An alternative root for the eukaryote Tree of Life. Curr. Biol. 24, 465–470 (2014).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Al Jewari, C. & Baldauf, S. L. Conflict over the eukaryote root resides in strong outliers, mosaics and missing data sensitivity of site-specific (CAT) mixture models. Syst. Biol. 0, 1–16 (2022).MATH
Google Scholar
Lax, G. et al. Hemimastigophora is a novel supra-kingdom-level lineage of eukaryotes. Nature 564, 410–414 (2018).Kapli, P., Yang, Z. & Telford, M. J. Phylogenetic tree building in the genomic age. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21, 428–444 (2020).Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Susko, E., Lincker, L. & Roger, A. J. Accelerated estimation of frequency classes in site-heterogeneous profile mixture models. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 1266–1283 (2018).Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Crotty, S. M. et al. GHOST: recovering historical signal from heterotachously evolved sequence alignments. Syst. Biol. 69, 249–264 (2019).
Google Scholar
Gaston, D., Susko, E. & Roger, A. J. A phylogenetic mixture model for the identification of functionally divergent protein residues. Bioinformatics 27, 2655–2663 (2011).Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Quang, L. S., Gascuel, O. & Lartillot, N. Empirical profile mixture models for phylogenetic reconstruction. Bioinformatics 24, 2317–2323 (2008).Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Szánthó, L. L., Lartillot, N., Szöllősi, G. J. & Schrempf, D. Compositionally constrained sites drive long-branch attraction. Syst. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1093/SYSBIO/SYAD013 (2023).Jerlström-Hultqvist, J. et al. A unique symbiosome in an anaerobic single-celled eukaryote. Nat. Commun. 15, 9726 (2024).Baños, H., Susko, E. & Roger, A. J. Is over-parameterization a problem for profile mixture models? Syst. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1093/SYSBIO/SYAD063 (2023).Brown, M. W. et al. Phylogenomics places orphan protistan lineages in a novel eukaryotic super-group. Genome Biol. Evol. 10, 427–433 (2018).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Strassert, J. F. H., Jamy, M., Mylnikov, A. P., Tikhonenkov, D. V. & Burki, F. New phylogenomic analysis of the enigmatic phylum Telonemia further resolves the eukaryote Tree of Life. Mol. Biol. Evol. 36, 757 (2019).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Williamson, K. et al. A robustly rooted tree of eukaryotes reveals their excavate ancestry [Data]. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26863594.v1 (2025).Cavalier-Smith, T. Ciliary transition zone evolution and the root of the eukaryote tree: implications for opisthokont origin and classification of kingdoms Protozoa, Plantae, and Fungi. Protoplasma 259, 487–593 (2022).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Cavalier-Smith, T. & Chao, E. E. Y. Multidomain ribosomal protein trees and the planctobacterial origin of neomura (eukaryotes, archaebacteria). Protoplasma 257, 621–753 (2020).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Baker, B. A. et al. Expanded phylogeny of extremely halophilic archaea shows multiple independent adaptations to hypersaline environments. Nat. Microbiol. 9, 964–975 (2024).Susko, E. Tests for two trees using likelihood methods. Mol. Biol. Evol. 31, 1029–1039 (2014).Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Markowski, E. & Susko, E. Performance of topology tests under extreme selection bias. Mol. Biol. Evol. 41, msad280 (2024).Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Heiss, A. A. et al. Combined morphological and phylogenomic re-examination of malawimonads, a critical taxon for inferring the evolutionary history of eukaryotes. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5, 171707 (2018).Article
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Susko, E. & Roger, A. J. Long branch attraction biases in phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 70, 838–843 (2021).Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Kapli, P. & Telford, M. J. Topology-dependent asymmetry in systematic errors affects phylogenetic placement of Ctenophora and Xenacoelomorpha. Sci. Adv. 6, 5162–5173 (2020).Article
ADS
MATH
Google Scholar
Inagaki, Y., Susko, E., Fast, N. M. & Roger, A. J. Covarion shifts cause a long-branch attraction artifact that unites Microsporidia and Archaebacteria in EF-1α phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21, 1340–1349 (2004).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Eglit, Y. et al. Meteora sporadica, a protist with incredible cell architecture, is related to Hemimastigophora. Curr. Biol. 34, 451–459.e6 (2024).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Yubuki, N. & Leander, B. S. Evolution of microtubule organizing centers across the tree of eukaryotes. Plant J. 75, 230–244 (2013).Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Heiss, A. A., Walker, G. & Simpson, A. G. B. The microtubular cytoskeleton of the apusomonad Thecamonas, a sister lineage to the opisthokonts. Protist 164, 598–621 (2013).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Suzuki-Tellier, S., Kiørboe, T. & Simpson, A. G. B. The function of the feeding groove of ‘typical excavate’ flagellates. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 71, e13016 (2024).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Takishita, K. et al. Multigene phylogenies of diverse carpediemonas-like organisms identify the closest relatives of ‘amitochondriate’ diplomonads and retortamonads. Protist 163, 344–355 (2012).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Leger, M. M. et al. Organelles that illuminate the origins of Trichomonas hydrogenosomes and Giardia mitosomes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0092 (2017).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Heiss, A. A., Walker, G. & Simpson, A. G. B. The ultrastructure of ancyromonas, a eukaryote without supergroup affinities. Protist 162, 373–393 (2011).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Brugerolle, G. Description of a new freshwater heterotrophic flagellate Sulcomonas lacustris affiliated to the collodictyonids. Acta Protozool. 45, 175–182 (2006).
Google Scholar
Brugerolle, G., Bricheux, G., Philippe, H. & Coffe, G. Collodictyon triciliatum and Diphylleia rotans (=Aulacomonas submarina) form a new family of flagellates (Collodictyonidae) with tubular mitochondrial cristae that is phylogenetically distant from other flagellate groups. Protist 153, 59–70 (2002).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Tikhonenkov, D. V. et al. Description of Colponema vietnamica sp.n. and Acavomonas peruviana n. gen. n. sp., two new alveolate Phyla (Colponemidia nom. nov. and Acavomonidia nom. nov.) and their contributions to reconstructing the ancestral state of alveolates and eukaryotes. PLoS ONE 9, e95467 (2014).Article
ADS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Janouškovec, J. et al. A new lineage of eukaryotes illuminates early mitochondrial genome reduction. Curr. Biol. 27, 3717–3724.e5 (2017).Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Leander, B. S. Eukaryotic evolution: deep phylogeny does not imply morphological novelty. Curr. Biol. 33, R112–R114 (2023).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Cavalier-Smith, T. Early evolution of eukaryote feeding modes, cell structural diversity, and classification of the protozoan phyla Loukozoa, Sulcozoa, and Choanozoa. Eur. J. Protistol. 49, 115–178 (2013).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Tice, A. K. et al. PhyloFisher: a phylogenomic package for resolving eukaryotic relationships. PLoS Biol. 19, e3001365 (2021).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Buchfink, B., Reuter, K. & Drost, H. G. Sensitive protein alignments at tree-of-life scale using DIAMOND. Nat. Methods 18, 366–368 (2021).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Fu, L., Niu, B., Zhu, Z., Wu, S. & Li, W. CD-HIT: accelerated for clustering the next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics 28, 3150 (2012).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 772–780 (2013).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Capella-Gutierrez, S., Silla-Martinez, J. M. & Gabaldon, T. trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics 25, 1972–1973 (2009).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Criscuolo, A. & Gribaldo, S. BMGE (block mapping and gathering with entropy): a new software for selection of phylogenetic informative regions from multiple sequence alignments. BMC Evol. Biol. 10, 210 (2010).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Minh, B. Q. et al. IQ-TREE 2: new models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Mol. Biol. Evol. 37, 1530–1534 (2020).Article
PubMed
PubMed Central
MATH
Google Scholar
Hoang, D. T., Chernomor, O., Von Haeseler, A., Minh, B. Q. & Vinh, L. S. UFBoot2: improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 518–522 (2018).Article
PubMed
Google Scholar
Tukey, J. W. Exploratory Data Analysis (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1977).Nguyen, L. T., Schmidt, H. A., Von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B. Q. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 268 (2015).Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Menardo, F. et al. Treemmer: a tool to reduce large phylogenetic datasets with minimal loss of diversity. BMC Bioinf. 19, 164 (2018).Article
MATH
Google Scholar
Susko, E. & Roger, A. J. On the use of information criteria for model selection in phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 37, 549–562 (2020).Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Lartillot, N., Lepage, T. & Blanquart, S. PhyloBayes 3: a Bayesian software package for phylogenetic reconstruction and molecular dating. Bioinformatics 25, 2286–2288 (2009).Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Guindon, S. et al. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst. Biol. 59, 307–321 (2010).Article
PubMed
MATH
Google Scholar
Reynolds, D. in Encyclopedia of Biometrics (ed. Li, S. Z.) 659–663 (Springer, 2009).Brown, M. Data associated with PhyloFisher. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.15141900.v1 (2021).Download referencesAcknowledgementsWe thank N. Ly-Trong for assistance with model implementation in IQ-TREE and J. Jerlström-Hultqvist for assistance with data acquisition and processing. We also thank J. Ross for assistance with figure design. This work was supported by the Moore-Simons Project on the Origin of the Eukaryotic Cell, Simons Foundation grant no. 735923LPI (https://doi.org/10.46714/735923LPI) awarded to A.J.R., E.S. and L.E. and by NSERC Discovery grants awarded to A.J.R. (grant no. RGPIN-2022-05430), A.G.B.S. (grant no. 298366-2019) and E.S. K.W. was supported by a graduate scholarship from the Killam Foundation.Author informationAuthors and AffiliationsDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Institute for Comparative Genomics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, CanadaKelsey Williamson, Laura Eme, Hector Baños, Charley G. P. McCarthy, Sergio A. Muñoz-Gómez & Andrew J. RogerUnité d’Ecologie, Systématique et Evolution Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, FranceLaura EmeDepartment of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USALaura EmeDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics and Institute for Comparative Genomics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, CanadaHector Baños & Edward SuskoDepartment of Mathematics, California State University San Bernardino, San Bernardino, CA, USAHector BañosGraduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kyoto, JapanRyoma KamikawaSection for Genetics and Evolutionary Biology, Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, NorwayRussell J. S. OrrTotal Defence Division, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment FFI, Kjeller, NorwayRussell J. S. OrrDepartment of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USASergio A. Muñoz-GómezSchool of Computing, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, AustraliaBui Quang MinhDepartment of Biology and Institute for Comparative Genomics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, CanadaAlastair G. B. SimpsonAuthorsKelsey WilliamsonView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarLaura EmeView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarHector BañosView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarCharley G. P. McCarthyView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarEdward SuskoView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarRyoma KamikawaView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarRussell J. S. OrrView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarSergio A. Muñoz-GómezView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarBui Quang MinhView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarAlastair G. B. SimpsonView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarAndrew J. RogerView author publicationsYou can also search for this author in
PubMed Google ScholarContributionsAncestral sequence reconstruction analyses, expansion and curation of the final datasets, and all phylogenomic analyses were performed by K.W. in consultation with A.J.R., A.G.B.S. and L.E. K.W. and H.B. performed simulation analyses. H.B. developed and implemented the MEOW model and performed cross-validation testing. C.G.P.M. and E.S. performed GFmix analyses. E.S. performed topology testing. B.Q.M. implemented the FunDi model in IQ-TREE2. S.A.M.-G., R.K. and R.J.S.O. provided molecular data. K.W., A.J.R., A.G.B.S., H.B., C.G.P.M. and E.S. wrote, and all authors edited and approved, the manuscript. A.J.R. and L.E. initially conceived the study.Corresponding authorsCorrespondence to
Kelsey Williamson or Andrew J. Roger.Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature thanks Thomas Richards and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional informationPublisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.Extended data figures and tablesExtended Data Fig. 1 Entropy and posterior probability of the predicted ancestral sequence at the root of Alphaproteobacteria as ingroup taxa are removed.A. The mean, median, and standard deviation of the posterior probability as taxa are removed. B. The mean, median, and standard deviation of the entropy as taxa are removed.Extended Data Fig. 2 Bayesian consensus tree estimated from Anae+ dataset.Consensus phylogeny estimated under the CAT + GTR model in PhyloBayes from 4 chains after 29,000 cycles, with a burn-in of 1000. Posterior probabilities for each bipartition are indicated. Note that these 4 chains included one in which Hemimastigophora branched on the opposite side of the root, separate from its previously inferred close relative Meteora, with this non-convergence resulting in posterior probabilities ~0.75 (0.74) for several deep nodes in the Diphoda+ side of the tree.Extended Data Fig. 3 Phylogeny estimated from Anae+ dataset with CAT-PMSF model.Amino acid exchangeability matrix and site frequency profiles were estimated on the alignment and a guide tree in PhyloBayes. Rate variation was modelled with the Free Rate model with four classes. Support values indicated are from 100 replicates of non-parametric bootstrapping.Extended Data Fig. 4 Bayesian consensus tree estimated from Anae- dataset.Consensus phylogeny estimated under the CAT + GTR model in PhyloBayes from 4 chains after 16,500 cycles, with a burn-in of 1000. Posterior probabilities for each bipartition are indicated.Extended Data Fig. 5 Phylogeny estimated from Anae- dataset with CAT-PMSF model.Amino acid exchangeability matrix and site frequency profiles were estimated on the alignment and a guide tree in PhyloBayes. Rate variation was modelled with the Free Rate model with four classes. Support values indicated are from 100 replicates of non-parametric bootstrapping.Extended Data Fig. 6 Phylogeny estimated from Anae+ dataset with only nuclear-encoded proteins.Phylogeny was estimated in IQ-TREE2 under the LG + MEOW80 + G4 model with 1000 replicates each of SH-aLRT and UFBOOT2. Support values are displayed on branches as SH-aLRT/UFBOOT2.Extended Data Fig. 7 Phylogeny estimated from Anae- dataset with only nuclear-encoded proteins.Phylogeny was estimated in IQ-TREE2 under the LG + MEOW80 + G4 model with 1000 replicates each of SH-aLRT and UFBOOT2. Support values are displayed on branches as SH-aLRT/UFBOOT2.Extended Data Fig. 8 Evaluating change in support for the root position as fastest-evolving sites are removed.A. Phylogenies were estimated in IQ-TREE2 under the LG + MEOW80 + G4 model with 1000 replicates each of SH-aLRT and UFBOOT2. Support values are indicated for the bipartitions relevant to the position of the eukaryote root.Extended Data Fig. 9 Phylogeny estimated from Anae- dataset after removal of fastest evolving taxa.Phylogeny was estimated in IQ-TREE2 under the LG + MEOW80 + G4 model with 1000 replicates each of SH-aLRT and UFBOOT2. Support values are displayed on branches as SH-aLRT/UFBOOT2.Extended Data Fig. 10 Phylogeny estimated from Anae- dataset after removal of most divergent genes.Alignment after gene removal consisted of 19324 sites from 80 concatenated genes. The phylogeny was estimated in IQ-TREE2 under the LG + MEOW80 + G4 model with 1000 replicates each of SH-aLRT and UFBOOT2. Support values are displayed on branches as SH-aLRT/UFBOOT2.Supplementary informationSupplementary InformationThis file contains Supplementary Methods and Refs.Reporting SummarySupplementary TablesThis file contains Supplementary Tables 1–11.Rights and permissionsSpringer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.Reprints and permissionsAbout this articleCite this articleWilliamson, K., Eme, L., Baños, H. et al. A robustly rooted tree of eukaryotes reveals their excavate ancestry.
Nature (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08709-5Download citationReceived: 09 September 2024Accepted: 28 January 2025Published: 12 March 2025DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08709-5Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative