4.7 Article

Phylogeny of Maleae (Rosaceae) Based on Complete Chloroplast Genomes Supports the Distinction of Aria, Chamaemespilus and Torminalis as Separate Genera, Different from Sorbus sp.

Journal

PLANTS-BASEL
Volume 10, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants10112534

Keywords

phylogenomics; complete chloroplast genome; wild service tree

Categories

Funding

  1. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education under the program Regional Initiative of Excellence [008/RID/2018/19]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that Aria edulis, Chamaemespilus alpina, and Torminalis glaberrima were more closely related to each other rather than to Sorbus s.s., providing additional support for considering them as separate genera.
Several genera formerly contained within the genus Sorbus L. sensu lato have been proposed as separate taxa, including Aria, Chamaemespilus and Torminalis. However, molecular evidence for such distinctions are rather scarce. We assembled the complete chloroplast genome of Sorbus aucuparia, another representative of Sorbus s.s., and performed detailed comparisons with the available genomes of Aria edulis, Chamaemespilus alpina and Torminalis glaberrima. Additionally, using 110 complete chloroplast genomes of the Maleae representatives, we constructed the phylogenetic tree of the tribe using Maximum Likelihood methods. The chloroplast genome of S. aucuparia was found to be similar to other species within Maleae. The phylogenetic tree of the Maleae tribe indicated that A. edulis, C. alpina and T. glaberrima formed a concise group belonging to a different Glade (related to Malus) than the one including Sorbus s.s. (related to Pyrus). However, Aria and Chamaemespilus appeared to be more closely related to each other than to Torminalis. Our results provide additional support for considering Aria, Chamaemespilus and Torminalis as separate genera different from Sorbus s.s.

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