4.4 Article

Population genomic analyses of RAD sequences resolves the phylogenetic relationship of the lichen-forming fungal species Usnea antarctica and Usnea aurantiacoatra

Journal

MYCOKEYS
Volume -, Issue 43, Pages 91-113

Publisher

PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3897/mycokeys.43.29093

Keywords

Antarctica; Ascomycota; lichens; Parmeliaceae; phylogeny; RADseq

Categories

Funding

  1. Tawani Foundation
  2. German Science Foundation [Pr 567/18-1]
  3. Robert A. Pritzker Center for Meteoritics and Polar Studies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Neuropogonoid species in the lichen-forming fungal genus Usnea exhibit great morphological variation that can be misleading for delimitation of species. We specifically focused on the species delimitation of two closely-related, predominantly Antarctic species differing in the reproductive mode and representing a so-called species pair: the asexual U. antarctica and the sexual U. aurantiacoatra. Previous studies have revealed contradicting results. While multi-locus studies based on DNA sequence data provided evidence that these two taxa might be conspecific, microsatellite data suggested they represent distinct lineages. By using RADseq, we generated thousands of homologous markers to build a robust phylogeny of the two species. Furthermore, we successfully implemented these data in fine-scale population genomic analyses such as DAPC and fineRADstructure. Both Usnea species are readily delimited in phylogenetic inferences and, therefore, the hypothesis that both species are conspecific was rejected. Population genomic analyses also strongly confirmed separated genomes and, additionally, showed different levels of co-ancestry and substructure within each species. Lower co-ancestry in the asexual U. antarctica than in the sexual U. aurantiacoatra may be derived from a wider distributional range of the former species. Our results demonstrate the utility of this RADseq method in tracing population dynamics of lichens in future analyses.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available