4.7 Article

Mimosoid legume plastome evolution: IR expansion, tandem repeat expansions, and accelerated rate of evolution in clpP

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/srep16958

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF Plant Genome Research Panel [1238731]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [31003A_135522]
  3. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences [1238731] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [31003A_135522] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Leguminosae has emerged as a model for studying angiosperm plastome evolution because of its striking diversity of structural rearrangements and sequence variation. However, most of what is known about legume plastomes comes from few genera representing a subset of lineages in subfamily Papilionoideae. We investigate plastome evolution in subfamily Mimosoideae based on two newly sequenced plastomes (Inga and Leucaena) and two recently published plastomes (Acacia and Prosopis), and discuss the results in the context of other legume and rosid plastid genomes. Mimosoid plastomes have a typical angiosperm gene content and general organization as well as a generally slow rate of protein coding gene evolution, but they are the largest known among legumes. The increased length results from tandem repeat expansions and an unusual 13 kb IRSSC boundary shift in Acacia and Inga. Mimosoid plastomes harbor additional interesting features, including loss of clpP intron1 in Inga, accelerated rates of evolution in clpP for Acacia and Inga, and dN/dS ratios consistent with neutral and positive selection for several genes. These new plastomes and results provide important resources for legume comparative genomics, plant breeding, and plastid genetic engineering, while shedding further light on the complexity of plastome evolution in legumes and angiosperms.

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