4.7 Article

Phylogenetic approaches for the analysis of mitochondrial genome sequence data in the Hymenoptera - A lineage with both rapidly and slowly evolving mitochondrial genomes

Journal

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
Volume 52, Issue 2, Pages 512-519

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2009.04.001

Keywords

Phylogeny; Hymenoptera; Holometabola; Bayesian; Partitioned; Bayes factors

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. Australian Academy of Science
  3. NSF [DEB0120718, DEB0444972]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We entirely sequenced two new hymencipteran mitochondrial genomes (Cephus cinctus and Orussus occidentalis), and a substantial portion of another three hymenopterans (Schlettererius cinctipes, Venturia canescens, and Enicospilus). We analyze them together with nine others reported in the literature. We establish that the rate of genetic divergence is two to three times higher among some Hymenoptera when compared with others, making this a group with both long and short phylogenetic branches. We then assessed the ability of a range of phylogenetic approaches to recover seven uncontroversial relationships, when lineages show markedly different rates of molecular evolution. This range encompassed maximum parsimony and Bayesian analysis of (i) amino acid data, (ii) nucleotide data, and (iii) nucleotide data excluding third codon positions. Unpartitioned analyses were compared with partitioned analyses, with the data partitioned by codon position (ribosomal genes were placed in a separate partition). These analyses indicated that partitioned, Bayesian analysis of nucleotide data, excluding 3rd codon positions, recovered more of the uncontroversial relationships than any other approach. These results suggest that the analysis of complete mitochondrial genome sequences holds promise for the resolution of hymenopteran superfamily relationships. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available