4.5 Article

Insufficient power of mitogenomic data in resolving the auchenorrhynchan monophyly

期刊

ZOOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 183, 期 4, 页码 776-790

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlx096

关键词

Auchenorrhyncha; mitochondrial genome; phylogeny

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31402002]
  2. Key Scientific Research Projects of Henan Province [14B210036, 16A210029]
  3. Henan Academician Workstation of Pest Green Prevention and Control for Plants in Southern Henan [YZ201601]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hemipteran suborder Auchenorrhyncha consists of four superfamily rank taxa (i.e. Cicadoidea, Membracoidea, Cercopoidea and Fulgoroidea), with more than 42 000 described species worldwide. The monophyly of Auchenorrhyncha and the higher-level relationships within this group remain questionable, despite recent research using morphological and molecular data. In this study, we sequenced 18 mitogenomes of representatives of Membracoidea, three of Cercopoidea and one of Psylloidea and conducted phylogenetic analyses together with 35 existing mitogenomes of Hemiptera, with special emphasis on the auchenorrhynchan monophyly. The phylogenetic inferences from the mitogenomic data are strongly affected by increased rates of sequence substitution associated with several lineages, which leads to the significant long-branch attraction. Under these conditions, the monophyly ofAuchenorrhyncha is not supported even with the comprehensive data coding schemes. This shows the limitations of the mitogenome in resolving the higher-level phylogeny of Auchenorrhyncha. In addition, the removal of fast-evolving sites using a pattern sorting method (OV-sorting) significantly improves phylogenetic estimates under both homogeneous and heterogeneous models. Moreover, data sets with a higher proportion of conserved sites recover the monophyly of Auchenorrhyncha and support a superfamily relationship of [Fulgoroidea + ((Cicadoidea + Cercopoidea) + Membracoidea)].

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

4.5
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