4.4 Article

Patterns of genomic diversification reflect differences in life history and reproductive biology between figs (Ficus) and the stone oaks (Lithocarpus)

期刊

GENOME
卷 60, 期 9, 页码 756-761

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/gen-2016-0188

关键词

tropical biodiversity; reference-free; comparative genomics; kmers; Ficus; Fagaceae; Moraceae; Lithocarpus; Castanopsis; Trigonobalanus

资金

  1. Yunnan Provincial Government High Level Talent Introduction grant, through the Department of Science and Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the remarkable aspects of the tremendous biodiversity found in tropical forests is the wide range of evolutionary strategies that have produced this diversity, indicating many paths to diversification. We compare two diverse groups of trees with profoundly different biologies to discover whether these differences are reflected in their genomes. Ficus (Moraceae), with its complex co-evolutionary relationship with obligate pollinating wasps, produces copious tiny seeds that are widely dispersed. Lithocarpus (Fagaceae), with generalized insect pollination, produces large seeds that are poorly dispersed. We hypothesize that these different reproductive biologies and life history strategies should have a profound impact on the basic properties of genomic divergence within each genus. Using shallow whole genome sequencing for six species of Ficus, seven species of Lithocarpus, and three outgroups, we examined overall genomic diversity, how it is shared among the species within each genus, and the fraction of this shared diversity that agrees with the major phylogenetic pattern. A substantially larger fraction of the genome is shared among species of Lithocarpus, a considerable amount of this shared diversity was incongruent with the general background history of the genomes, and each fig species possessed a substantially larger fraction of unique diversity than Lithocarpus.

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

4.4
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