4.8 Article

Phylogenetic patterns suggest frequent multiple origins of secondary metabolites across the seed-plant 'tree of life'

期刊

NATIONAL SCIENCE REVIEW
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nsr/nwaa105

关键词

secondary metabolites; phylogenetic tree; phylogenetic signal; co-diversification; evolution; bioprospecting; seed plants

资金

  1. Major Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [31590823]
  2. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC0505200]
  3. Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA 20050203]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the phylogenetic patterns of plant secondary metabolites (PSMs) distribution and evolution, finding weak clustering of PSMs during seed-plant evolution and multiple origins of PSM biosynthesis. The observed distribution patterns for PSMs may be helpful in the search for natural compounds for medicinal purposes.
To evaluate the phylogenetic patterns of the distribution and evolution of plant secondary metabolites (PSMs), we selected 8 classes of PSMs and mapped them onto an updated phylogenetic tree including 437 families of seed plants. A significant phylogenetic signal was detected in 17 of the 18 tested seed-plant clades for at least 1 of the 8 PSM classes using the D statistic. The phylogenetic signal, nevertheless, indicated weak clustering of PSMs compared to a random distribution across all seed plants. The observed signal suggests strong diversifying selection during seed-plant evolution and/or relatively weak evolutionary constraints on the evolution of PSMs. In the survey of the current phylogenetic distributions of PSMs, we found that multiple origins of PSM biosynthesis due to external selective forces for diverse genetic pathways may have played important roles. In contrast, a single origin of PSMs seems rather uncommon. The distribution patterns for PSMs observed in this study may also be useful in the search for natural compounds for medicinal purposes.

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

4.8
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