4.4 Article

Potential use of low-copy nuclear genes in DNA barcoding: a comparison with plastid genes in two Hawaiian plant radiations

期刊

BMC EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-13-35

关键词

Adaptive radiation; Island biogeography; Lobeliads; Next-generation sequencing; Progression rule; Single-copy nuclear genes

资金

  1. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  2. Washington State University
  3. Direct For Education and Human Resources
  4. Division Of Human Resource Development [0833211] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Office Of The Director
  6. EPSCoR [0903833] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: DNA barcoding of land plants has relied traditionally on a small number of markers from the plastid genome. In contrast, low-copy nuclear genes have received little attention as DNA barcodes because of the absence of universal primers for PCR amplification. Results: From pooled-species 454 transcriptome data we identified two variable intron-less nuclear loci for each of two species-rich genera of the Hawaiian flora: Clermontia (Campanulaceae) and Cyrtandra (Gesneriaceae) and compared their utility as DNA barcodes with that of plastid genes. We found that nuclear genes showed an overall greater variability, but also displayed a high level of heterozygosity, intraspecific variation, and retention of ancient alleles. Thus, nuclear genes displayed fewer species-diagnostic haplotypes compared to plastid genes and no interspecies gaps. Conclusions: The apparently greater coalescence times of nuclear genes are likely to limit their utility as barcodes, as only a small proportion of their alleles were fixed and unique to individual species. In both groups, species-diagnostic markers from either genome were scarce on the youngest island; a minimum age of ca. two million years may be needed for a species flock to be barcoded. For young plant groups, nuclear genes may not be a superior alternative to slowly evolving plastid genes.

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