4.6 Article

Characterization of the complete chloroplast genome of Arabis stellari and comparisons with related species

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183197

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Biological Resources of Korea [NBR 201631201]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Arabis stellari var. japonica is an ornamental plant of the Brassicaceae family, and is widely distributed in South Korea. However, no information is available about its molecular biology and no genomic study has been performed on A. stellari. In this paper, the authors report the complete chloroplast genome sequence of A. stellari. The plastome of A. stellari was 153,683 bp in length with 36.4% GC and included a pair of inverted repeats (IRs) of 26,423 bp that separated a large single-copy (LSC) region of 82,807 bp and a small single-copy (SSC) region of 18,030 bp. It was also found to contain 113 unique genes, of which 79 were protein-coding genes, 30 were transfer RNAs, and four were ribosomal RNAs. The gene content and organization of the A. stellari chloroplast genome were similar to those of other Brassicaceae genomes except for the absence of the rps16 protein-coding gene. A total of 991 SSRs were identified in the genome. The chloroplast genome of A. stellari was compared with closely related species of the Brassicaceae family. Comparative analysis showed a minor divergence occurred in the protein-coding matK, ycf1, ccsA, accD and rpl22 genes and that the K-A/K-S nucleotide substitution ratio of the ndhA genes of A. stellari and A. hirsuta was 1.35135. The genes infA and rps16 were absent in the Arabis genus and phylogenetic evolutionary studies revealed that these genes evolved independently. However, phylogenetic analysis showed that the positions of Brassicaceae species are highly conserved. The present study provides A. stellari genomic information that may be found useful in conservation and molecular phylogenetic studies on Brassicaceae.

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