4.7 Article

Comparative and Phylogenetic Analyses of the Complete Chloroplast Genomes of Six Almond Species (Prunus spp. L.)

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-67264-3

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Non-profit Research Institution of CAF [CAFYBB2017ZA004-7]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41501059]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As a source of genetic variation, almond germplasm resources are of great significance in breeding. To better reveal the mutation characteristics and evolution patterns of the almond chloroplast (cp) genome, the complete cp genomes from six almond species were analyzed. The lengths of the chloroplast genome of the six almond species ranged from 157,783bp to 158,073bp. For repeat sequence analysis, 53 pairs of repeats (30bp or longer) were identified. A total of 117 SSR loci were observed, including 96 polymorphic SSR loci. Nine highly variable regions with a nucleotide variability (Pi) higher than 0.08, including rps16, rps16-psbK, atpF-atpH, rpoB, ycf3-rps4, rps4-ndhJ, accD-psaI and rps7-orf42 (two highly variable regions) were located. Based on the chloroplast genome evolution analysis, three species (P. tenella, P. pedunculata and P. triloba) and wild cherry (P. tomentosa) were grouped into clade I. Clade II consisted of two species (P. mongolica and P. tangutica) and wild peach (P. davidiana). Clade III included the common almond (P. dulcis), cultivated peach (P. persica) and GanSu peach (P. kansuensis). This result expands the researchers' vision of almond plant diversity and promotes an understanding of the evolutionary relationship among almond species. In brief, this study provides abundant resources for the study of the almond chloroplast genome, and has an important reference value for study of the evolution and species identification of almond.

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