4.2 Article

Complete mitochondrial genomes of Conogethes punctiferalis and C. pinicolalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae): Genomic comparison and phylogenetic inference in Pyraloidea

Journal

JOURNAL OF ASIA-PACIFIC ENTOMOLOGY
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 1179-1186

Publisher

KOREAN SOC APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.aspen.2021.10.014

Keywords

Conogethes punctiferalis; Conogethes pinicolalis; Mitogenome; Phylogeny; Spilomelinae; DNA barcoding region

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study compared the mitochondrial genomes of Conogethes punctiferalis and Conogethes pinicolalis, finding significant divergence in protein-coding genes and rRNA genes, not supporting hybridization between the two species. Phylogenetic analysis supported the monophyly of subfamilies in Crambidae and Pyralidae, but low nodal supports were observed due to the limited taxa in the study.
Conogethes punctiferalis Guenee, 1854 (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) is a serious polyphagous pest that attacks more than one hundred species of plants. Previously, C. punctiferalis was determined to be composed of two ecotypes; later, Conogethes pinicolalis, was described as a separate species. Due to the prolonged negligence of C. pinicolalis as an independent species, the genetic perspective of the two species is limited. Thus, in this study, 15,332 and 15,336 bp-long complete mitochondrial genome (mitogenome) of the two species were sequenced and compared to each other and to 54 available mitogenomes of Pyraloidea. The comparison of each protein-coding gene (PCG) and rRNA gene of the two congeneric species showed substantial sequence divergence, ranging from 3.13% (ATP8) to 8.3% (COIII), with an average of 5.92%. Phylogenetic analyses using concatenated sequences of 13 PCGs and 2 rRNAs (12,458 bp including gaps), both by maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI) methods, consistently supported the monophyly of each family (Crambidae and Pyralidae) and subfamily, generally with the highest nodal supports. The subfamilial relationships of ((((Acentropinae + Schoenobiinae) + (Scopariinae + Crambinae)) + Evergestinae) + (Spilomelinae + Pyraustinae)) in Crambidae and the subfamilial relationships of ((((Pyralinae + Epipaschiinae) + Phycitinae) + Galleriilinae)) in Pyralidae were obtained in both analyses. However, nodal supports were substantially low in this study, mainly due to limited taxa.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available