4.6 Article

Genomic Repeat Abundances Contain Phylogenetic Signal

Journal

SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY
Volume 64, Issue 1, Pages 112-126

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syu080

Keywords

Repetitive DNA; continuous characters; genomics; next-generation sequencing; phylogenetics; molecular systematics

Funding

  1. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/G01724/1]
  2. Czech Science Foundation [P501/12/G090]
  3. NERC
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NBAF010003, NE/G020256/1, 1233138, NBAF010002, NE/G017247/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. BBSRC [BBS/E/D/20310000] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. NERC [NE/G017247/1, NBAF010002, NE/G020256/1, NBAF010003] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A large proportion of genomic information, particularly repetitive elements, is usually ignored when researchers are using next-generation sequencing. Here we demonstrate the usefulness of this repetitive fraction in phylogenetic analyses, utilizing comparative graph-based clustering of next-generation sequence reads, which results in abundance estimates of different classes of genomic repeats. Phylogenetic trees are then inferred based on the genome-wide abundance of different repeat types treated as continuously varying characters; such repeats are scattered across chromosomes and in angiosperms can constitute a majority of nuclear genomic DNA. In six diverse examples, five angiosperms and one insect, this method provides generally well-supported relationships at interspecific and intergeneric levels that agree with results from more standard phylogenetic analyses of commonly used markers. We propose that this methodology may prove especially useful in groups where there is little genetic differentiation in standard phylogenetic markers. At the same time as providing data for phylogenetic inference, this method additionally yields a wealth of data for comparative studies of genome evolution.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available