4.7 Article

Deep phylogenetic incongruence in the angiosperm clade Rosidae

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 83, 期 -, 页码 156-166

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2014.11.003

关键词

Hybridization; Introgression; Incomplete lineage sorting; COM clade; Incongruence; Phylogenomics

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [NNSF 31270268]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2014CB954101]
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences [2011T1S24]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany [LSEB2011-10]
  5. US National Science Foundation [DEB-1301828]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analysis of large data sets can help resolve difficult nodes in the tree of life and also reveal complex evolutionary histories. The placement of the Celastrales-Oxalidales-Malpighiales (COM) clade within Rosidae remains one of the most confounding phylogenetic questions in angiosperms, with previous analyses placing it with either Fabidae or Malvidae. To elucidate the position of COM, we assembled multi-gene matrices of chloroplast, mitochondrial, and nuclear sequences, as well as large single- and multi-copy nuclear gene data sets. Analyses of multi-gene data sets demonstrate conflict between the chloroplast and both nuclear and mitochondrial data sets, and the results are robust to various character-coding and data-exclusion treatments. Analyses of single- and multi-copy nuclear loci indicate that most loci support the placement of COM with Malvidae, fewer loci support COM with Fabidae, and almost no loci support COM outside a clade of Fabidae and Malvidae. Although incomplete lineage sorting and ancient introgressive hybridization remain as plausible explanations for the conflict among loci, more complete sampling is necessary to evaluate these hypotheses fully. Our results emphasize the importance of genomic data sets for revealing deep incongruence and complex patterns of evolution. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据