Conflicting phylogenetic signals in plastomes of the tribe Laureae (Lauraceae).
Intra-plastome conflict
Laureae
Phylogenetic signal
Tree discordance
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
10
06
2020
accepted:
21
09
2020
entrez:
22
10
2020
pubmed:
23
10
2020
medline:
23
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Gene tree discordance is common in phylogenetic analyses. Many phylogenetic studies have excluded non-coding regions of the plastome without evaluating their impact on tree topology. In general, plastid loci have often been treated as a single unit, and tree discordance among these loci has seldom been examined. Using samples of Laureae (Lauraceae) plastomes, we explored plastome variation among the tribe, examined the influence of non-coding regions on tree topology, and quantified intra-plastome conflict. We found that the plastomes of Laureae have low inter-specific variation and are highly similar in structure, size, and gene content. Laureae was divided into three groups, subclades I, II and III. The inclusion of non-coding regions changed the phylogenetic relationship among the three subclades. Topologies based on coding and non-coding regions were largely congruent except for the relationship among subclades I, II and III. By measuring the distribution of phylogenetic signal across loci that supported different topologies, we found that nine loci (two coding regions, two introns and five intergenic spacers) played a critical role at the contentious node. Our results suggest that subclade III and subclade II are successively sister to subclade I. Conflicting phylogenetic signals exist between coding and non-coding regions of Laureae plastomes. Our study highlights the importance of evaluating the influence of non-coding regions on tree topology and emphasizes the necessity of examining discordance among different plastid loci in phylogenetic studies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Gene tree discordance is common in phylogenetic analyses. Many phylogenetic studies have excluded non-coding regions of the plastome without evaluating their impact on tree topology. In general, plastid loci have often been treated as a single unit, and tree discordance among these loci has seldom been examined. Using samples of Laureae (Lauraceae) plastomes, we explored plastome variation among the tribe, examined the influence of non-coding regions on tree topology, and quantified intra-plastome conflict.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We found that the plastomes of Laureae have low inter-specific variation and are highly similar in structure, size, and gene content. Laureae was divided into three groups, subclades I, II and III. The inclusion of non-coding regions changed the phylogenetic relationship among the three subclades. Topologies based on coding and non-coding regions were largely congruent except for the relationship among subclades I, II and III. By measuring the distribution of phylogenetic signal across loci that supported different topologies, we found that nine loci (two coding regions, two introns and five intergenic spacers) played a critical role at the contentious node.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that subclade III and subclade II are successively sister to subclade I. Conflicting phylogenetic signals exist between coding and non-coding regions of Laureae plastomes. Our study highlights the importance of evaluating the influence of non-coding regions on tree topology and emphasizes the necessity of examining discordance among different plastid loci in phylogenetic studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33088627
doi: 10.7717/peerj.10155
pii: 10155
pmc: PMC7568859
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e10155Informations de copyright
©2020 Xiao et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Références
Plant Mol Biol. 1989 Jan;12(1):3-11
pubmed: 24272712
Bioinformatics. 2010 Mar 1;26(5):589-95
pubmed: 20080505
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2016 Dec;105:166-176
pubmed: 27369455
BMC Complement Altern Med. 2006 Apr 05;6:12
pubmed: 16597335
Mol Biol Evol. 2017 Jul 1;34(7):1689-1701
pubmed: 28383641
Mol Biol Evol. 2016 Jul;33(7):1654-68
pubmed: 27189547
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2016 Jan;94(Pt A):1-33
pubmed: 26238460
Mol Biol Evol. 2015 Jan;32(1):268-74
pubmed: 25371430
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jul 22;100(15):8828-33
pubmed: 12817081
BMC Biol. 2009 Dec 02;7:84
pubmed: 19954512
Am J Bot. 2014 Jan;101(1):92-103
pubmed: 24375828
Nat Ecol Evol. 2017 Apr 10;1(5):126
pubmed: 28812701
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jul 3;45(W1):W6-W11
pubmed: 28486635
Mol Biol Evol. 2017 Mar 1;34(3):772-773
pubmed: 28013191
Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 Jul 1;32(Web Server issue):W273-9
pubmed: 15215394
Mol Biol Evol. 2001 Nov;18(11):2136-8
pubmed: 11606712
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jul;41(Web Server issue):W575-81
pubmed: 23609545
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 23;109(43):17519-24
pubmed: 23045684
PeerJ. 2019 Oct 7;7:e7662
pubmed: 31608166
Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Apr;30(4):772-80
pubmed: 23329690
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2015 Nov;92:63-71
pubmed: 26115844
Bioinformatics. 2014 Aug 1;30(15):2114-20
pubmed: 24695404
New Phytol. 2017 Aug;215(3):1235-1248
pubmed: 28695680
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2015 Feb;83:156-66
pubmed: 25463749
PeerJ. 2019 Sep 24;7:e7747
pubmed: 31579615
Genome Biol Evol. 2017 Sep 1;9(9):2354-2364
pubmed: 28957463
J Mol Evol. 1989 Aug;29(2):170-9
pubmed: 2509717
Bioinformatics. 2014 May 1;30(9):1312-3
pubmed: 24451623
Planta. 2018 Jan;247(1):255-266
pubmed: 28956160
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Dec 5;92(25):11331-8
pubmed: 8524780
Syst Biol. 2020 Jul 1;69(4):613-622
pubmed: 32065640
PeerJ. 2018 Feb 2;6:e4299
pubmed: 29416954
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2019 Dec;141:106605
pubmed: 31479732
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 17;12(4):e0175788
pubmed: 28414813
New Phytol. 2020 Feb;225(3):1355-1369
pubmed: 31665814
Mol Biol Evol. 2007 Aug;24(8):1586-91
pubmed: 17483113
Gene. 2012 Oct 15;508(1):96-105
pubmed: 22841789
Syst Biol. 2002 Jun;51(3):492-508
pubmed: 12079646
BMC Genomics. 2017 Feb 16;18(1):176
pubmed: 28209119
Syst Biol. 2016 May;65(3):366-80
pubmed: 25164915
Mol Biol Evol. 2020 Jan 1;37(1):291-294
pubmed: 31432070
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Feb 28;45(4):e18
pubmed: 28204566
Bioinformatics. 2019 Nov 1;35(21):4453-4455
pubmed: 31070718
Plant Mol Biol. 2011 Jul;76(3-5):273-97
pubmed: 21424877
New Phytol. 2018 Jun;218(4):1631-1644
pubmed: 29206296
Sci Rep. 2018 Jun 11;8(1):8844
pubmed: 29891996
New Phytol. 2020 May;226(4):1158-1170
pubmed: 30963585
Mol Biol Evol. 2015 Aug;32(8):2015-35
pubmed: 25873589
Am J Bot. 2017 Apr;104(4):559-572
pubmed: 28400415
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2019 Sep;138:219-232
pubmed: 31146023
Mol Biol Evol. 2015 Mar;32(3):791-805
pubmed: 25431481
New Phytol. 2014 May;202(3):736-8
pubmed: 24467712
Nat Plants. 2019 May;5(5):461-470
pubmed: 31061536
Curr Genet. 2016 May;62(2):431-42
pubmed: 26650613
New Phytol. 2016 Jan;209(2):855-70
pubmed: 26350789
Bioinformatics. 2009 Aug 15;25(16):2078-9
pubmed: 19505943
BMC Evol Biol. 2015 Mar 18;15:50
pubmed: 25887467
Plant Mol Biol. 1987 Jan;9(1):59-64
pubmed: 24276798
J Plant Res. 2009 May;122(3):283-98
pubmed: 19219578
BMC Bioinformatics. 2018 May 8;19(Suppl 6):153
pubmed: 29745866
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2018 Oct;127:156-167
pubmed: 29803950
Annu Rev Genet. 1985;19:325-54
pubmed: 3936406