4.3 Article

Mitochondrial genomes of the bird genus Piranga: rates of sequence evolution, and discordance between mitochondrial and nuclear markers

期刊

MITOCHONDRIAL DNA PART B-RESOURCES
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 2566-2569

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/23802359.2019.1637286

关键词

Mito-nuclear discordance; mitogenome; tanager

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant [DEB-1406989]
  2. University of Kansas (KU) Graduate Research Grant
  3. KU Research Investment Council
  4. KU Biodiversity Institute Leamann Harris Award
  5. NSF [DEB-1354006, DEB-1241181]
  6. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [P20GM103638]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the characteristics of the mitochondrial genomes of 22 individuals in the bird genus Piranga, including all currently recognized species in the genus (n = 11). Elements follow the standard avian mitogenome series, including two ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes, 22 transfer RNA (tRNA) genes, 13 protein coding genes, and the mitochondrial control region. Excluding tRNA sequences, sequence divergence rate was lowest in rRNA genes and highest in genes encoding NADH (specifically ND1, ND2, ND3) and the control region. Gene trees assembled from 16 elements (non-tRNAs) varied greatly in topological concordance compared to the recognized species tree (based on thousands of nuclear loci), with no one gene tree precisely recovering all relationships in the genus. We also investigated patterns of concordance between the mitogenome tree and the nuclear species tree and found some discrepancies. Across non-tRNA gene trees (n = 16), the species tree topology was recovered by as few as three elements at a particular node and complete concordance (i.e. 16/16 gene trees matched the species tree topology) was recovered at only one node. We found mitochondrial gene regions that are often used in vertebrate systematics (e.g. CytB, ND2) recovered nearly the exact same topology as the nuclear species tree topology.

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

4.3
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