4.1 Article

Genetic diversity and species delimitation of the zeorin-containing red-fruited Cladonia species (lichenized Ascomycota) assessed with ITS rDNA and β-tubulin data

期刊

LICHENOLOGIST
卷 45, 期 5, 页码 665-684

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0024282913000297

关键词

bootscanning; Cladoniaceae; Cocciferae; Lecanoromycetes; lichens; taxonomy

资金

  1. Charles University Foundation (GA UK) [126608]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Zeorin-containing red-fruited Cladonia species, the so-called C. coccifera group, are widespread terrestrial lichens which share most of their secondary substances but differ morphologically. The main objective of this study was to explore whether the current delimitation of these species is supported by molecular data. A total of 52 European and North American specimens of C. coccifera, C. deformis, C. diversa, and C. pleurota were examined. The internal transcribed spacer regions of the nuclear ribosomal DNA and the beta-tubulin gene loci were sequenced for phylogenetic analyses. Traditional morphological species circumscriptions in zeorin-containing members of the C. coccifera group are not supported by molecular data. Cladonia coccifera, C. deformis, and C. pleurota were recovered as polyphyletic in both gene topologies; C. diversa formed a lineage in the ITS phylogeny but this was not statistically supported. We detected chemical patterns of the presence/absence of porphyrilic and/or isousnic acid which may help to characterize two lineages. Our results also show incongruence between the two molecular markers studied. Therefore, we focused on possible explanations of this phenomenon. Five major evolutionary mechanisms can potentially result in phylogenetic discordance between genes: presence of pseudogenes, horizontal gene transfer, gene paralogy, incomplete lineage sorting, and hybridization. These mechanisms are briefly discussed. We consider incomplete lineage sorting and/or hybridization to best explain the incongruence.

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

4.1
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