4.7 Article

Phylogenomic analyses of large-scale nuclear genes provide new insights into the evolutionary relationships within the rosids

Journal

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
Volume 105, Issue -, Pages 166-176

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2016.06.007

Keywords

Coalescence; Rosids phylogenomics; Nuclear genes; Gene tree; Species tree

Funding

  1. National Key Basic Research Program [2014CB954100]
  2. Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences [2014KIB02]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Rosids is one of the largest groups of flowering plants, with 140 families and 70,000 species. Previous phylogenetic studies of the rosids have primarily utilized organelle genes that likely differ in evolutionary histories from nuclear genes. To better understand the evolutionary history of rosids, it is necessary to investigate their phylogenetic relationships using nuclear genes. Here, we employed large-scale phylogenomic datasets composed of nuclear genes, including 891 clusters of putative orthologous genes. Combined with comprehensive taxon sampling covering 63 species representing 14 out of the 17 orders, we reconstructed the rosids phylogeny with coalescence and concatenation methods, yielding similar tree topologies from all datasets. However, these topologies did not agree on the placement of Zygophyllales. Through comprehensive analyses, we found that missing data and gene tree heterogeneity were potential factors that may mislead concatenation methods, in particular, large amounts of missing data under high gene tree heterogeneity. Our results provided new insights into the deep phylogenetic relationships of the rosids, and demonstrated that coalescence methods may effectively resolve the phylogenetic relationships of the rosids with missing data under high gene tree heterogeneity. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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