4.7 Article

Evolutionary history and divergence times of Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) revealed through transcriptomics

期刊

ISCIENCE
卷 24, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.103324

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [1564386, 1453147]
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG) [NI 1387/1-1]
  3. BGI-Shenzhen
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences
  5. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [1564386] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences
  7. Div Of Molecular and Cellular Bioscience [1453147] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through transcriptome analysis, dragonfly and damselfly families were found to be recovered as monophyletic, and the simplification of ovipositor in damselflies evolved during the late Jurassic to early Cretaceous.
Dragonflies and damselflies are among the earliest flying insects with extant representatives. However, unraveling details of their long evolutionary history, such as egg laying (oviposition) strategies, is impeded by unresolved phylogenetic relationships, particularly in dams lies. Here we present a transcriptome-based phylogenetic reconstruction of Odonata, analyzing 2,980 protein-coding genes in 105 species representing nearly all the order's families. All damselfly and most dragonfly families are recovered as monophyletic. Our data suggest a sister relationship between dragonfly families of Gomphidae and Petaluridae. According to our divergence time estimates, both crown-Zygoptera and -Anisoptera arose during the late Triassic. Egg-laying with a reduced ovipositor apparently evolved in dragonflies during the late Jurassic/early Cretaceous. Lastly, we also test the impact of fossil choice and placement, particularly, of the extinct fossil species, dagger Triassolestodes asiaticus, and dagger Proterogomphus renateae on diver gence time estimates. We find placement of dagger Proterogomphus renateae to be much more impactful than dagger Triassolestodes asiaticus.

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