In TEL 2 we could now identify
Torin 2 nmr 16 sub-groups sampled from worldwide locations such as the Arctic and Antarctic oceans, the English Channel, Danish and German waters, the Indian Ocean, Sargasso Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Hawaiian waters. Implications on the geographic structuring of Telonemia The geographic structuring shown by Shalchian-Tabrizi et al.  is here diminished by the addition of more environmental sequences (Figure 1). Several of the sub-groups previously found to have restricted geographic ranges now includes sequences from new locations. For instance the sub-groups 2m and 2o (earlier 2c and 2b; Figure 1), previously found to be restricted to the Arctic Ocean, are now extended to the Indian Ocean, Hawaiian waters and the Mediterranean Sea. The sub-group 2k (earlier 2g), which was previously restricted to the English Channel, Oslo Fjord and Helgoland (i.e. southern parts
of the North Sea/Skagerak), now includes sequences from the Mediterranean Sea as well. Additionally, most of the sub-groups new to this study have widespread distributions; e.g. sub-group 1b is composed of sequences from the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, while sub-group 2l is composed of sequences from as distant locations Etomoxir in vitro as the Arctic Ocean, Western Pacific, Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean. Although the majority of the Batimastat in vivo subgroups show little geographic structuring, the high diversity uncovered here implies that geographical isolation has existed at some point. The combination of high diversity and low geographic structuring show Aspartate that subsequent dispersal rates
have been higher than speciation rates over the history of Telonemia. The existence of endemicity cannot be completely excluded however. One important reason is that each clade may represent higher order taxonomic units, like genera or families, and each phylotype can in principle represent separate species (or even several species as 18S rDNA may be too conserved to demarcate species boundaries [21, 25, 44]). Hence, the widespread geography of the subgroups may be hiding endemicity at strain or species level; in fact we could not identify the same phylotypes from different localities. Sampling of DNA from more sites and a larger variety of marine habitats, as well as the use of faster evolving genetic markers, such as the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) of the ribosomal operon, would be necessary to resolve this question. On the other hand, any putative geographic restriction of species or groups should be interpreted with caution because endemicity in general is difficult to prove, as there will always be a possibility of undersampling and absence of species at times of sampling due to seasonal variations.