4.7 Article

Cryptic divergences in the genus Pisum L. (peas), as revealed by phylogenetic analysis of plastid genomes

Journal

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
Volume 129, Issue -, Pages 280-290

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2018.09.002

Keywords

Plastid genome; Wild peas; Pisum L.; Phylogenetic trees; Introgression; Plant microevolution

Funding

  1. Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations, Russua, via the Institute of Cytology and Genetics SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Russia [0324-2018-0018]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Organellar genomes may shed light on complicated patterns of plant evolution at inter- and intraspecies level. Primary structure of plastid genomes sequenced in this study and taken from public databases was characterised and compared in 22 diverse, mostly wild representatives of the genus Pisum (peas). Phylogenetic trees reconstructed via Bayesian approach on the basis of entire plastid genomes resembled those reconstructed on the basis of a nuclear gene His5 coding for a minor histone H1 subtype. They reveal Pisum fulvum as an early divergence of the genus but do not support other taxonomical subdivisions. The positions of three accessions, classified as P. sativum subsp. elatius (the wild subspecies of the common pea), appeared quite unexpected. On the entire plastid genome tree, two accessions, from the Black Sea area of Turkey and Georgia, clustered with representatives of another species, P. fulvum, while the other, from Greece, was the first divergence of the P. sativum branch. We suppose these unusual plastid genomes to be ancient lineages ascending to a 'missing link' between P. fulvum and P. sativum, represented by accession Pe 013 from Turkey. Accessions with common pea appearance but deeply diverged plastids could occur through occasional crossing of diverged pea lines in the past and biparental plastid inheritance, both events being possible in peas.

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