Plastome evolution of Engelhardia facilitates phylogeny of Juglandaceae.
Engelhardia
Codon usage pattern
Insertion and deletion
Phylogenetic relationships
Plastomes
Journal
BMC plant biology
ISSN: 1471-2229
Titre abrégé: BMC Plant Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jul 2024
06 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
29
03
2024
accepted:
12
06
2024
medline:
7
7
2024
pubmed:
7
7
2024
entrez:
6
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Engelhardia (Juglandaceae) is a genus of significant ecological and economic importance, prevalent in the tropics and subtropics of East Asia. Although previous efforts based on multiple molecular markers providing profound insights into species delimitation and phylogeography of Engelhardia, the maternal genome evolution and phylogeny of Engelhardia in Juglandaceae still need to be comprehensively evaluated. In this study, we sequenced plastomes from 14 samples of eight Engelhardia species and the outgroup Rhoiptelea chiliantha, and incorporated published data from 36 Juglandaceae and six outgroup species to test phylogenetic resolution. Moreover, comparative analyses of the plastomes were conducted to investigate the plastomes evolution of Engelhardia and the whole Juglandaceae family. The 13 Engelhardia plastomes were highly similar in genome size, gene content, and order. They exhibited a typical quadripartite structure, with lengths from 161,069 bp to 162,336 bp. Three mutation hotspot regions (TrnK-rps16, ndhF-rpl32, and ycf1) could be used as effective molecular markers for further phylogenetic analyses and species identification. Insertion and deletion (InDels) may be an important driving factor for the evolution of plastomes in Juglandoideae and Engelhardioideae. A total of ten codons were identified as the optimal codons in Juglandaceae. The mutation pressure mostly contributed to shaping codon usage. Seventy-eight protein-coding genes in Juglandaceae experienced relaxed purifying selection, only rpl22 and psaI genes showed positive selection (Ka/Ks > 1). Phylogenetic results fully supported Engelhardia as a monophyletic group including two sects and the division of Juglandaceae into three subfamilies. The Engelhardia originated in the Late Cretaceous and diversified in the Late Eocene, and Juglandaceae originated in the Early Cretaceous and differentiated in Middle Cretaceous. The phylogeny and divergence times didn't support rapid radiation occurred in the evolution history of Engelhardia. Our study fully supported the taxonomic treatment of at the section for Engelhardia species and three subfamilies for Juglandaceae and confirmed the power of phylogenetic resolution using plastome sequences. Moreover, our results also laid the foundation for further studying the course, tempo and mode of plastome evolution of Engelhardia and the whole Juglandaceae family.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Engelhardia (Juglandaceae) is a genus of significant ecological and economic importance, prevalent in the tropics and subtropics of East Asia. Although previous efforts based on multiple molecular markers providing profound insights into species delimitation and phylogeography of Engelhardia, the maternal genome evolution and phylogeny of Engelhardia in Juglandaceae still need to be comprehensively evaluated. In this study, we sequenced plastomes from 14 samples of eight Engelhardia species and the outgroup Rhoiptelea chiliantha, and incorporated published data from 36 Juglandaceae and six outgroup species to test phylogenetic resolution. Moreover, comparative analyses of the plastomes were conducted to investigate the plastomes evolution of Engelhardia and the whole Juglandaceae family.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The 13 Engelhardia plastomes were highly similar in genome size, gene content, and order. They exhibited a typical quadripartite structure, with lengths from 161,069 bp to 162,336 bp. Three mutation hotspot regions (TrnK-rps16, ndhF-rpl32, and ycf1) could be used as effective molecular markers for further phylogenetic analyses and species identification. Insertion and deletion (InDels) may be an important driving factor for the evolution of plastomes in Juglandoideae and Engelhardioideae. A total of ten codons were identified as the optimal codons in Juglandaceae. The mutation pressure mostly contributed to shaping codon usage. Seventy-eight protein-coding genes in Juglandaceae experienced relaxed purifying selection, only rpl22 and psaI genes showed positive selection (Ka/Ks > 1). Phylogenetic results fully supported Engelhardia as a monophyletic group including two sects and the division of Juglandaceae into three subfamilies. The Engelhardia originated in the Late Cretaceous and diversified in the Late Eocene, and Juglandaceae originated in the Early Cretaceous and differentiated in Middle Cretaceous. The phylogeny and divergence times didn't support rapid radiation occurred in the evolution history of Engelhardia.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our study fully supported the taxonomic treatment of at the section for Engelhardia species and three subfamilies for Juglandaceae and confirmed the power of phylogenetic resolution using plastome sequences. Moreover, our results also laid the foundation for further studying the course, tempo and mode of plastome evolution of Engelhardia and the whole Juglandaceae family.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38971744
doi: 10.1186/s12870-024-05293-0
pii: 10.1186/s12870-024-05293-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
634Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Zhou HJ, Hu YH, Ebrahimi A, et al. Whole genome based insights into the phylogeny and evolution of the Juglandaceae. BMC Ecol Evol. 2021;21(1):191. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-021-01917-3 .
doi: 10.1186/s12862-021-01917-3
pubmed: 34674641
pmcid: 8529855
Zhang QY, Ree RH, Salamin N, et al. Fossil-informed models reveal a boreotropical origin and divergent evolutionary trajectories in the walnut family (Juglandaceae). Syst Biol. 2021;71(1):242–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syab030 .
doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syab030
pubmed: 33964165
pmcid: 8677545
Mu XY, Tong L, Sun M, et al. Phylogeny and divergence time estimation of the walnut family (Juglandaceae) based on nuclear RAD-Seq and chloroplast genome data. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2020;147: 106802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2020.106802 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2020.106802
pubmed: 32217170
The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. Bot J Linn Soc. 2016;181(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/boj.12385 .
doi: 10.1111/boj.12385
Wang YQ, Song MM, Zhou H, et al. Research of Engelbardtia Leschen. ex Blume. J Dalian Univ. 2012;33(5):81–5 CNKI:SUN:DALI.0.2012–06–020.
He JC, Wei S, Lan SB, et al. Study on chemical constituents of stem bark of Engelhardia roxburghiana. Chinese Traditional and Herbal Drugs. 2006;37(12):1788–9. https://doi.org/10.3321/j.issn:0253-2670.2006.12.011 .
doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0253-2670.2006.12.011
Meng HH, Zhang CY, Low SL, et al. Two new species from Sulawesi and Borneo facilitate phylogeny and taxonomic revision of Engelhardia (Juglandaceae). Plant Divers. 2022;44(6):552–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2022.08.003 .
doi: 10.1016/j.pld.2022.08.003
pubmed: 36540706
pmcid: 9751081
Wang JW. Whispers of Juglandaceae plants. In: Life World. 1994. p. 32–4 CNKI:SUN:ZWZA.0.1994–04–032.
Zhang CY, Ling Low S, Song YG, et al. Shining a light on species delimitation in the tree genus Engelhardia Leschenault ex Blume (Juglandaceae). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2020;152: 106918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2020.106918 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2020.106918
pubmed: 32738292
Meng HH, Zhang CY, Song YG, et al. Opening a door to the spatiotemporal history of plants from the tropical Indochina Peninsula to subtropical China. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2022;171: 107458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107458 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107458
pubmed: 35351637
Ling LZ, Zhang SD. Characterization of the complete chloroplast genome of Engelhardia roxburghiana (Juglandaceae). Mitochondrial DNA B Resour. 2019;5(1):250–1. https://doi.org/10.1080/23802359.2019.1700197 .
doi: 10.1080/23802359.2019.1700197
pubmed: 33366508
pmcid: 7748694
Liu M, Lu JS, Li Y, et al. Complete chloroplast genome of Engelhardtia fenzlii (Juglandaceae). Mitochondrial DNA B Resour. 2021;6(1):288–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/23802359.2020.1863871 .
doi: 10.1080/23802359.2020.1863871
pubmed: 33553647
pmcid: 7850322
Rono PC, Dong X, Yang JX, et al. Initial complete chloroplast genomes of Alchemilla (Rosaceae): comparative analysis and phylogenetic relationships. Front Genet. 2020;11: 560368. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.560368 .
doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.560368
pubmed: 33362846
pmcid: 7756076
Gao LZ, Liu YL, Zhang D, et al. Evolution of Oryza chloroplast genomes promoted adaptation to diverse ecological habitats. Commun Biol. 2019;2:278. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-019-0531-2 .
doi: 10.1038/s42003-019-0531-2
pubmed: 31372517
pmcid: 6659635
Kress WJ, Wurdack KJ, Zimmer EA, et al. Use of DNA barcodes to identify flowering plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(23):8369–74. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0503123102 .
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0503123102
pubmed: 15928076
pmcid: 1142120
Liu LX, Li R, Worth JRP, et al. The complete chloroplast genome of Chinese bayberry (Morella rubra, Myricaceae): implications for understanding the evolution of Fagales. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:968. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00968 .
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00968
pubmed: 28713393
pmcid: 5492642
Jansen RK, Raubeson LA, Boore JL, et al. Methods for obtaining and analyzing whole chloroplast genome sequences. Methods Enzymol. 2005;395:348–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(05)95020-9 .
doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(05)95020-9
pubmed: 15865976
Daniell H, Lin CS, Yu M, et al. Chloroplast genomes: diversity, evolution, and applications in genetic engineering. Genome Biol. 2016;17(1):134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-016-1004-2 .
doi: 10.1186/s13059-016-1004-2
pubmed: 27339192
pmcid: 4918201
Graham SW, Zgurski JM, McPherson MA, et al. Robust inference of monocot deep phylogeny using an expanded multigene plastid data set. Aliso. 2006;22(1):3–21. https://doi.org/10.5642/ALISO.20062201.02 .
doi: 10.5642/ALISO.20062201.02
Raman G, Park SJ. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of Ampelopsis: gene organization, comparative analysis, and phylogenetic relationships to other Angiosperms. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:341. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00341 .
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00341
pubmed: 27047519
pmcid: 4800181
Manos PS, Soltis PS, Soltis DE, et al. Phylogeny of extant and fossil Juglandaceae inferred from the integration of molecular and morphological data sets. Syst Biol. 2007;56(3):412–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150701408523 .
doi: 10.1080/10635150701408523
pubmed: 17558964
Loron CC, Rodriguez Dzul E, Orr PJ, et al. Molecular fingerprints resolve affinities of Rhynie chert organic fossils. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):1387. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37047-1 .
doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37047-1
pubmed: 36914650
pmcid: 10011563
Silvestro D, Bacon CD, Ding WN, et al. Fossil data support a pre-Cretaceous origin of flowering plants. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021;5(4):449–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01387-8 .
doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-01387-8
pubmed: 33510432
Aradhya MK, Potter D, Gao FY, et al. Molecular phylogeny of Juglans (Juglandaceae): a biogeographic perspective. Tree Genet Genomes. 2007;3(4):363–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-006-0078-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s11295-006-0078-5
Yan H, Zhou P, Wang W, et al. Biogeographic history of Pterocarya (Juglandaceae) inferred from phylogenomic and fossil data. J Syst Evol. 2024:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jse.13055 .
Xi JW, Lv SB, Zhang WP, et al. Comparative plastomes of Carya species provide new insights into the plastomes evolution and maternal phylogeny of the genus. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13: 990064. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.990064 .
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.990064
pubmed: 36407576
pmcid: 9667483
Dong WP, Xu C, Li WQ, et al. Phylogenetic resolution in Juglans based on complete chloroplast genomes and nuclear DNA sequences. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1148. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01148 .
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01148
pubmed: 28713409
pmcid: 5492656
Kaila T, Chaduvla PK, Saxena S, et al. Chloroplast genome sequence of Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millspaugh) and Cajanus scarabaeoides (L.) thouars: genome organization and comparison with other Legumes. Front Plant Sci. 2016;9(7):1847. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01847 .
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01847
Palmer JD. Comparative organization of chloroplast genomes. Ann Rev Genet. 1985;19:325–54. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ge.19.120185.001545 .
doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.19.120185.001545
pubmed: 3936406
Wolfe KH, Li WH, Sharp PM. Rates of nucleotide substitution vary greatly among plant mitochondrial, chloroplast, and nuclear DNAs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1987;84(24):9054–8. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.84.24.9054 .
doi: 10.1073/pnas.84.24.9054
pubmed: 3480529
pmcid: 299690
Xu GY, Xu WR. Complete chloroplast genomes of Chinese wild-growing Vitis species: molecular structures and comparative and adaptive radiation analysis. Protoplasma. 2020;258(3):559–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-020-01585-y .
doi: 10.1007/s00709-020-01585-y
pubmed: 33230625
Nie XJ, Lv SZ, Zhang YX, et al. Complete chloroplast genome sequence of a major invasive species, crofton weed (Ageratina adenophora). PLoS ONE. 2012;7(5):36869. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036869 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036869
Wang MY, Zhang XM, Ding Y, et al. Comparison and evolutionary analysis of chloroplast genomes in hemiparasitic plants of the Santalaceae. Molecular Plant Breeding (In Chinese). 2023;21(9):2908–24. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/46.1068.S.20220516.1501.014.html .
Zheng Y, Zhang H, Wang QM, et al. Complete chloroplast genome sequence of Clivia miniata and its characteristics. Acta Horticulturae Sinica. 2020;47(12):2439–50. https://doi.org/10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2020-0466 .
doi: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2020-0466
Shen JS, Li XQ, Chen X, et al. The complete chloroplast genome of Carya cathayensis and phylogenetic analysis. Genes (Basel). 2022;13(2):369. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13020369 .
doi: 10.3390/genes13020369
pubmed: 35205413
Mo ZH, Lou WR, Chen YQ, et al. The chloroplast genome of Carya illinoinensis: genome structure, adaptive evolution, and phylogenetic analysis. Forests. 2020;11(2):207. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11020207 .
doi: 10.3390/f11020207
Hu YH, Woeste KE, Zhao P. Completion of the chloroplast genomes of five Chinese Juglans and their contribution to chloroplast phylogeny. Front Plant Sci. 2017;7:1955. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01955 .
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01955
pubmed: 28111577
pmcid: 5216037
Yi X, Gao L, Wang B, et al. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of Cephalotaxus oliveri (Cephalotaxaceae): evolutionary comparison of Cephalotaxus chloroplast DNAs and insights into the loss of inverted repeat copies in gymnosperms. Genome Biol Evol. 2013;5(4):688–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evt042 .
doi: 10.1093/gbe/evt042
pubmed: 23538991
pmcid: 3641632
Kress WJ. Plant DNA barcodes: applications today and in the future. J Syst Evol. 2017;55(4):291–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/jse.12254 .
doi: 10.1111/jse.12254
Chi XF, Zhang FQ, Dong Q, et al. Insights into comparative genomics, codon usage bias, and phylogenetic relationship of species from Biebersteiniaceae and Nitrariaceae based on complete chloroplast genomes. Plants (Basel). 2020;9(11):1605. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9111605 .
doi: 10.3390/plants9111605
pubmed: 33218207
Gao CM, Deng YF, Wang J. The complete chloroplast genomes of Echinacanthus species (Acanthaceae): phylogenetic relationships, adaptive evolution, and screening of molecular markers. Front Plant Sci. 2019;9:1989. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01989 .
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01989
pubmed: 30687376
pmcid: 6335349
Hu TT, Pattyn P, Bakker EG, et al. The Arabidopsis lyrata genome sequence and the basis of rapid genome size change. Nat Genet. 2011;43(5):476–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.807 .
doi: 10.1038/ng.807
pubmed: 21478890
pmcid: 3083492
Li G, Zhang L, Xue P. Codon usage pattern and genetic diversity in chloroplast genomes of Panicum species. Gene. 2021;802: 145866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2021.145866 .
doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2021.145866
pubmed: 34352297
Rao YS, Wu GZ, Wang ZF, et al. Mutation bias is the driving force of codon usage in the Gallus gallus genome. DNA Res. 2011;18(6):499–512. https://doi.org/10.1093/dnares/dsr035 .
doi: 10.1093/dnares/dsr035
pubmed: 22039174
pmcid: 3223081
LaBella AL, Opulente DA, Steenwyk JL, et al. Variation and selection on codon usage bias across an entire subphylum. PLOS Genet. 2019;15(7):1008304. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008304 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008304
Wu LW, Cui YX, Wang Q, et al. Identification and phylogenetic analysis of five Crataegus species (Rosaceae) based on complete chloroplast genomes. Planta. 2021;254(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-021-03667-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s00425-021-03667-4
pubmed: 34180013
Bhattacharyya D, Uddin A, Das S, et al. Mutation pressure and natural selection on codon usage in chloroplast genes of two species in Pisum L. (Fabaceae: Faboideae). Mitochondrial DNA A DNA Mapp Seq Anal. 2019;30(4):664–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/24701394.2019.1616701 .
doi: 10.1080/24701394.2019.1616701
pubmed: 31119964
Sheng JJ, She X, Liu XY, et al. Comparative analysis of codon usage patterns in chloroplast genomes of five Miscanthus species and related species. PeerJ. 2021;9:12173. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12173 .
doi: 10.7717/peerj.12173
Hao BQ, Xia YY, Ye H, et al. Analysis on codon usage bias of the chloroplast genome of Camellia osmanth. Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology. 2022;42:178–86.
Sueoka N. Near homogeneity of PR2-bias fingerprints in the human genome and their implications in phylogenetic analyses. J Mol Evol. 2001;53(4–5):469–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002390010237 .
doi: 10.1007/s002390010237
pubmed: 11675607
Kawabe A, Miyashita NT. Patterns of codon usage bias in three dicot and four monocot plant species. Genes Genet Sys. 2003;78(5):343–52. https://doi.org/10.1266/ggs.78.343 .
doi: 10.1266/ggs.78.343
Gao Y, Lu Y, Song Y, et al. Analysis of codon usage bias of WRKY transcription factors in Helianthus annuus. BMC Genom Data. 2022;23(1):46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-022-01064-8 .
doi: 10.1186/s12863-022-01064-8
pubmed: 35725374
pmcid: 9210703
Jiang Y, Deng F, Wang HL, et al. An extensive analysis on the global codon usage pattern of baculoviruses. Arch Virol. 2008;153(12):2273–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-008-0260-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s00705-008-0260-1
pubmed: 19030954
Roychoudhury S, Mukherjee D. A detailed comparative analysis on the overall codon usage pattern in herpesviruses. Virus Res. 2010;148(1–2):31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virusres.2009.11.018 .
doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2009.11.018
pubmed: 19969032
Chen L, Liu TF, Yang DY, et al. Analysis of codon usage patterns in Taenia pisiformis through annotated transcriptome data. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2013;430(4):1344–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2012.12.078 .
doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2012.12.078
pubmed: 23268345
Wang ZJ, Xu BB, Li B, et al. Comparative analysis of codon usage patterns in chloroplast genomes of six Euphorbiaceae species. PeerJ. 2020;8: e8251. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8251 .
doi: 10.7717/peerj.8251
pubmed: 31934501
pmcid: 6951282
Zhang WJ, Zhou J, Li ZF, et al. Comparative analysis of codon usage patterns among mitochondrion, chloroplast and nuclear genes in Triticum aestivum L. J Integr Plant Biol. 2007;49(2):246–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2007.00404.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7909.2007.00404.x
Xu C, Cai XN, Chen QZ, et al. Factors affecting synonymous codon usage bias in chloroplast genome of Oncidium Gower Ramsey. Evol Bioinform Online. 2011;7:271–8. https://doi.org/10.4137/EBO.S8092 .
doi: 10.4137/EBO.S8092
pubmed: 22253533
pmcid: 3255522
Ivanova Z, Sablok G, Daskalova E, et al. Chloroplast genome analysis of resurrection tertiary relict Haberlea rhodopensis highlights genes important for desiccation stress response. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:204. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00204 .
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00204
pubmed: 28265281
pmcid: 5316520
Choi KS, Kwak M, Lee B, et al. Complete chloroplast genome of Tetragonia tetragonioides: molecular phylogenetic relationships and evolution in Caryophyllales. PLoS One. 2018;13(6):0199626. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199626 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199626
Keller J, Rousseau-Gueutin M, Martin GE, et al. The evolutionary fate of the chloroplast and nuclear rps16 genes as revealed through the sequencing and comparative analyses of four novel legume chloroplast genomes from Lupinus. DNA Res. 2017;24(4):343–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/dnares/dsx006 .
doi: 10.1093/dnares/dsx006
pubmed: 28338826
pmcid: 5737547
Li X, Li YF, Sylvester SP, et al. Evolutionary patterns of nucleotide substitution rates in plastid genomes of Quercus. Ecol Evol. 2021;11(19):13401–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8063 .
doi: 10.1002/ece3.8063
pubmed: 34646478
pmcid: 8495791
Wu LW, Nie LP, Xu ZC, et al. Comparative and phylogenetic analysis of the complete chloroplast genomes of three Paeonia Section Moutan species (Paeoniaceae). Front Genet. 2020;11:980. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.00980 .
doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.00980
pubmed: 33193580
pmcid: 7533573
Xiang XG, Wang W, Li RQ, et al. Large-scale phylogenetic analyses reveal fagalean diversification promoted by the interplay of diaspores and environments in the Paleogene. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst. 2014;16(3):101–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PPEES.2014.03.001 .
doi: 10.1016/J.PPEES.2014.03.001
Hermsen EJ, Gandolfo MA. Fruits of Juglandaceae from the Eocene of South America. Syst Bot. 2016;41(2):316–28. https://doi.org/10.1600/036364416X691830 .
doi: 10.1600/036364416X691830
Lin RZ, Li RQ, Lu AM, et al. Comparative flower development of Juglans regia, Cyclocarya paliurus and Engelhardia spicata: homology of floral envelopes in Juglandaceae. Bot J Linn Soc. 2016;181(2):279–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/boj.12413 .
doi: 10.1111/boj.12413
Manning WE. The classification within the Juglandaceae. Ann Mo Bot Gard. 1978;65(4):1058–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/2398782 .
doi: 10.2307/2398782
Song YG, Li Y, Meng HH, et al. Phylogeny, taxonomy, and biogeography of Pterocarya (Juglandaceae). Plants (Basel). 2020;9(11):1524. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9111524 .
doi: 10.3390/plants9111524
pubmed: 33182441
Geng YF, Hu GX, Wang S, et al. Complete chloroplast genome of the threatened Rhoiptelea chiliantha (Juglandaceae s.l.). Conserv Genet Resour. 2018;11(3):317–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12686-018-1021-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s12686-018-1021-4
Manchester SR. The fossil history of the Juglandaceae. Ann Mo Bot Gard. 1987;21:1–137.
Sauquet H, Ho SYW, Gandolfo MA, et al. Testing the impact of calibration on molecular divergence times using a fossil-rich group: the case of Nothofagus (Fagales). Syst Biol. 2012;61(2):289–313. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syr116 .
doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syr116
pubmed: 22201158
Ding YM, Pang XX, Cao Y, et al. Genome structure-based Juglandaceae phylogenies contradict alignment-based phylogenies and substitution rates vary with DNA repair genes. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):617. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36247-z .
doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-36247-z
pubmed: 36739280
pmcid: 9899254
Heřmanová Z, Kvaček J, Friis EM. Budvaricarpus serialis Knobloch & Mai, an unusual new member of the normapolles complex from the Late Cretaceous of the Czech Republic. Int J Plant Sci. 2011;172(2):285–93. https://doi.org/10.1086/657278 .
doi: 10.1086/657278
Wolfe JA. Some aspects of plant geography of the northern hemisphere during the Late Cretaceous and Tertiary. Ann Mo Bot Gard. 1975;62(2):264–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/2395198 .
doi: 10.2307/2395198
Tiffney BH. Perspectives on the origin of the floristic similarity between Eastern Asia and Eastern North America. J Arnold Arbor. 1985;66(1):73–94. https://doi.org/10.5962/BHL.PART.13179 .
doi: 10.5962/BHL.PART.13179
Tiffney BH. The Eocene North Atlantic land bridge: its importance in Tertiary and modern phytogeography of the northern hemisphere. J Arnold Arbor. 1985;66(2):243–73. https://doi.org/10.5962/BHL.PART.13183 .
doi: 10.5962/BHL.PART.13183
Tiffney BH, Manchester SR. The use of geological and paleontological evidence in evaluating plant phylogeographic hypotheses in the Northern Hemisphere Tertiary. Int J Plant Sci. 2001;162(S6):3–17. https://doi.org/10.1086/323880 .
doi: 10.1086/323880
Zachos J, Pagani M, Sloan L, et al. Trends, rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. Science. 2001;292(5517):686–93. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1059412 .
doi: 10.1126/science.1059412
pubmed: 11326091
Mosbrugger V, Utescher T, Dilcher DL. Cenozoic continental climatic evolution of Central Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(42):14964–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.050526710 .
doi: 10.1073/pnas.050526710
Jin JH. Two Eocene fossil fruits from the Changchang Basin of Hainan Island. China Rev Palaeobot Palynol. 2009;153(1–2):150–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revpalbo.2008.07.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.revpalbo.2008.07.010
Jin JJ, Yu WB, Yang JB, et al. GetOrganelle: a fast and versatile toolkit for accurate de novo assembly of organelle genomes. Genome Biol. 2020;21(1):241. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-020-02154-5 .
doi: 10.1186/s13059-020-02154-5
pubmed: 32912315
pmcid: 7488116
Liu SY, Ni Y, Li JL, et al. CPGView: A package for visualizing detailed chloroplast genome structures. Mol Ecol Resour. 2023;23(3):694–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13729 .
doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.13729
pubmed: 36587992
Frazer KA, Pachter L, Poliakov A, et al. VISTA: computational tools for comparative genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32(Web Server issue):273–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh458 .
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh458
Vega-Trejo R, de Boer RA, Fitzpatrick JL, et al. Sex-specific inbreeding depression: A meta-analysis. Ecol Lett. 2022;25(4):1009–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13961 .
doi: 10.1111/ele.13961
pubmed: 35064612
pmcid: 9304238
Kurtz S, Choudhuri JV, Ohlebusch E, et al. REPuter: the manifold applications of repeat analysis on a genomic scale. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001;29(22):4633–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/29.22.4633 .
doi: 10.1093/nar/29.22.4633
pubmed: 11713313
pmcid: 92531
Rozas J, Ferrer-Mata A, Sanchez-DelBarrio JC, et al. DnaSP 6: DNA sequence polymorphism analysis of large data sets. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34(12):3299–302. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msx248 .
doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx248
pubmed: 29029172
Hershberg R, Petrov DA. Selection on codon bias. Annu Rev Genet. 2008;42:287–99. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genet.42.110807.091442 .
doi: 10.1146/annurev.genet.42.110807.091442
pubmed: 18983258
Reis MD, Savva R, Wernisch L. Solving the riddle of codon usage preferences: a test for translational selection. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32(17):5036–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkh834 .
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh834
pubmed: 15448185
pmcid: 521650
Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(4):772–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst010 .
doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst010
pubmed: 23329690
pmcid: 3603318
Posada D. ModelTest Server: a web-based tool for the statistical selection of models of nucleotide substitution online. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34:700–03. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkl042 .
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkl042
Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J. A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML Web servers. Syst Biol. 2008;57(5):758–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150802429642 .
doi: 10.1080/10635150802429642
pubmed: 18853362
Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP. et al. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2003;19(12):1572–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180 .
Kou YX, Cheng SM, Tian S, et al. The antiquity of Cyclocarya paliurus(Juglandaceae) provides new insights into the evolution of relict plants in subtropical China since the late Early Miocene. J Biogeogr. 2016;43(2):351–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12635 .
doi: 10.1111/jbi.12635
Larson-Johnson K. Phylogenetic investigation of the complex evolutionary history of dispersal mode and diversification rates across living and fossil Fagales. New Phytol. 2016;209(1):418–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13570 .
doi: 10.1111/nph.13570
pubmed: 26204796
Manchester SR, Dilcher DL. Pterocaryoid fruits (Juglandaceae) in the Paleogene of North America and their evolutionary and biogeographic significance. Am J Bot. 1982;69(2):275–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/2443015 .
doi: 10.2307/2443015
Pigg KB, Manchester SR, Wehr WC. Corylus, Carpinus, and Palaeocarpinus (Betulaceae) from the Middle Eocene Klondike Mountain and Allenby Formations of northwestern North America. Int J Plant Sci. 2003;164(5):807–22. https://doi.org/10.1086/376816 .
doi: 10.1086/376816
Drummond AJ, Rambaut A. BEAST: Bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees. BMC Evol Biol. 2007;7:214. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-7-214 .
doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-7-214
pubmed: 17996036
pmcid: 2247476