4.4 Article

Patterns of genomic diversification reflect differences in life history and reproductive biology between figs (Ficus) and the stone oaks (Lithocarpus)

Journal

GENOME
Volume 60, Issue 9, Pages 756-761

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/gen-2016-0188

Keywords

tropical biodiversity; reference-free; comparative genomics; kmers; Ficus; Fagaceae; Moraceae; Lithocarpus; Castanopsis; Trigonobalanus

Funding

  1. Yunnan Provincial Government High Level Talent Introduction grant, through the Department of Science and Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

One of the remarkable aspects of the tremendous biodiversity found in tropical forests is the wide range of evolutionary strategies that have produced this diversity, indicating many paths to diversification. We compare two diverse groups of trees with profoundly different biologies to discover whether these differences are reflected in their genomes. Ficus (Moraceae), with its complex co-evolutionary relationship with obligate pollinating wasps, produces copious tiny seeds that are widely dispersed. Lithocarpus (Fagaceae), with generalized insect pollination, produces large seeds that are poorly dispersed. We hypothesize that these different reproductive biologies and life history strategies should have a profound impact on the basic properties of genomic divergence within each genus. Using shallow whole genome sequencing for six species of Ficus, seven species of Lithocarpus, and three outgroups, we examined overall genomic diversity, how it is shared among the species within each genus, and the fraction of this shared diversity that agrees with the major phylogenetic pattern. A substantially larger fraction of the genome is shared among species of Lithocarpus, a considerable amount of this shared diversity was incongruent with the general background history of the genomes, and each fig species possessed a substantially larger fraction of unique diversity than Lithocarpus.

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