4.6 Article

Resolving the Mortierellaceae phylogeny through synthesis of multi-gene phylogenetics and phylogenomics

期刊

FUNGAL DIVERSITY
卷 104, 期 1, 页码 267-289

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13225-020-00455-5

关键词

Mortierellaceae; Phylogenomics; Molecular systematics; Taxonomy; Multi-locus sequence typing

类别

资金

  1. US National Science Foundation (NSF) [DEB 1737898]
  2. Michigan State University AgBioResearch NIFA project [MICL02416]
  3. NSF STC BEACON [DBI-093954]
  4. US National Science Foundation [DEB1354802, DEB1441677]
  5. Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  6. NSF [DBI-1429826]
  7. NIH [S10-OD016290]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early efforts to classify Mortierellaceae were based on macro- and micromorphology, but sequencing and phylogenetic studies with ribosomal DNA (rDNA) markers have demonstrated conflicting taxonomic groupings and polyphyletic genera. Although some taxonomic confusion in the family has been clarified, rDNA data alone is unable to resolve higher level phylogenetic relationships within Mortierellaceae. In this study, we applied two parallel approaches to resolve the Mortierellaceae phylogeny: low coverage genome (LCG) sequencing and high-throughput, multiplexed targeted amplicon sequencing to generate sequence data for multi-gene phylogenetics. We then combined our datasets to provide a well-supported genome-based phylogeny having broad sampling depth from the amplicon dataset. Resolving the Mortierellaceae phylogeny into monophyletic genera resulted in 13 genera, 7 of which are newly proposed. Low-coverage genome sequencing proved to be a relatively cost-effective means of generating a high-confidence phylogeny. The multi-gene phylogenetics approach enabled much greater sampling depth and breadth than the LCG approach, but has limitations too. We present this work to resolve some of the taxonomic confusion and provide a genus-level framework to empower future studies on Mortierellaceae diversity and evolution.

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