4.6 Article

Rapid radiations of both kiwifruit hybrid lineages and their parents shed light on a two-layer mode of species diversification

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 215, 期 2, 页码 877-890

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.14607

关键词

Actinidia; backbone phylogeny; hybrid speciation; phylogenomics; reticulate evolution

资金

  1. Science and Technology Service Network Initiative of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [KFJ-EW-STS-076]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31471847, 31572092]
  3. Crop Germplasm Conservation Project of China [2016NWB027]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reticulate speciation caused by interspecific hybridization is now recognized as an important mechanism in the creation of biological diversity. However, depicting the patterns of phylogenetic networks for lineages that have undergone interspecific gene flow is challenging. Here we sequenced 25 taxa representing natural diversity in the genus Actinidia with an average mapping depth of 269 on the reference genome to reconstruct their reticulate history. We found evidence, including significant gene tree discordance, cytonuclear conflicts, and changes in genome-wide heterozygosity across taxa, collectively supporting extensive reticulation in the genus. Furthermore, at least two separate parental species pairs were involved in the repeated origin of the hybrid lineages, in some of which a further phase of syngameon was triggered. On the basis of the elucidated hybridization relationships, we obtained a highly resolved backbone phylogeny consisting of taxa exhibiting no evidence of hybrid origin. The backbone taxa have distinct demographic histories and are the product of recent rounds of rapid radiations via sorting of ancestral variation under variable climatic and ecological conditions. Our results suggest a mode for consecutive plant diversification through two layers of radiations, consisting of the rapid evolution of backbone lineages and the formation of hybrid swarms derived from these lineages.

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