4.6 Article

The Chloroplast Genome of Hyoscyamus niger and a Phylogenetic Study of the Tribe Hyoscyameae (Solanaceae)

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098353

关键词

-

资金

  1. ANCyPT [PICT193]
  2. NIH [FIRCA-BB R03 TW008353-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The tribe Hyoscyameae (Solanaceae) is restricted to Eurasia and includes the genera Archihyoscyamus, Anisodus, Atropa, Atropanthe, Hyoscyamus, Physochlaina, Przewalskia and Scopolia. Even though the monophyly of Hyoscyameae is strongly supported, the relationships of the taxa within the tribe remain unclear. Chloroplast markers have been widely used to elucidate plant relationships at low taxonomic levels. Identification of variable chloroplast intergenic regions has been developed based on comparative genomics of chloroplast genomes, but these regions have a narrow phylogenetic utility. In this study, we present the chloroplast genome sequence of Hyoscyamus niger and make comparisons to other solanaceous plastid genomes in terms of gene order, gene and intron content, editing sites, origins of replication, repeats, and hypothetical open reading frames. We developed and sequenced three variable plastid markers from eight species to elucidate relationships within the tribe Hyoscyameae. The presence of a horizontally transferred intron in the mitochondrial cox1 gene of some species of the tribe is considered here a likely synapomorphy uniting five genera of the Hyoscyameae. Alternatively, the cox1 intron could be a homoplasious character acquired twice within the tribe. A homoplasious inversion in the intergenic plastid spacer trnC-psbM was recognized as a source of bias and removed from the data set used in the phylogenetic analyses. Almost 12 kb of plastid sequence data were not sufficient to completely resolve relationships among genera of Hyoscyameae but some clades were identified. Two alternative hypotheses of the evolution of the genera within the tribe are proposed.

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

4.6
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