4.5 Article

THE CONTRIBUTION OF SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN STRAINS TO THE PHYLOGENY OF CYANOBACTERIA: FOCUSING ON THE NOSTOCACEAE (NOSTOCALES, CYANOBACTERIA)

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYCOLOGY
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 564-579

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2010.00836.x

关键词

16S rDNA; Africa; Anabaena; Cyanobacteria; Cylindrospermopsis; hetR; nifH; Nostocaceae; phylogeny; rpoC1

资金

  1. National Museum of Natural History [BQR 2007]
  2. Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement (IRD) [067]
  3. Consortium National de Recheche en Genomique
  4. Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle [IFR 101]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To date, phylogenies have been based on known gene sequences accessible at GenBank, and the absence of many cyanobacterial lineages from collections and sequence databases has hampered their classification. Investigating new biotopes to isolate more genera and species is one way to enrich strain collections and subsequently enhance gene sequence databases. A polyphasic approach is another way of improving our understanding of the details of cyanobacterial classification. In this work, we have studied phylogenetic relationships in strains isolated from freshwater bodies in Senegal and Burkina Faso to complement existing morphological and genetic databases. By comparing 16S rDNA sequences of African strains to those of other cyanobacteria lineages, we placed them in the cyanobacterial phylogeny and confirmed their genus membership. We then focused on the Nostocaceae family by concatenated analysis of four genes (16S rDNA, hetR, nifH, and rpoC1 genes) to characterize relationships among Anabaena morphospecies, in particular, Anabaena sphaerica var. tenuis G. S. West. Using a polyphasic approach to the Nostocaceae family, we demonstrate that A. sphaerica var. tenuis is more closely related to Cylindrospermospsis/Raphidiopsis than to other planktonic Anabaena/Aphanizomenon. On the basis of phylogeny and morphological data, we propose that these three significantly different clusters should be assigned to three genera.

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

4.5
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