4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Molecular evolution of a plastid tandem repeat locus in an orchid lineage

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR EVOLUTION
卷 57, 期 -, 页码 S41-S49

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00239-003-0006-3

关键词

minisatellite; phylogenetic analysis; VNTR; secondary structure; mutation rate; slipped-strand mispairing (SSM); haplotype diversity; phylogeography; Anacamptis palustris

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The molecular evolution of a chloroplast minisatellite locus in the Anacamptis palustris (Orchidaceae) lineage and haplotype variation in two Italian A. palustris populations were investigated. A phylogenetic analyses of the chloroplast tRNA(LEU) intron, where the minisatellite locus is located, revealed that a deletion in the ancestor of the A. palustris lineage led to the formation of two noncontiguous, complementary sequence motifs. We propose a model to explain the initial formation of the minisatellite repeat motif, starting with the two noncontiguous, complementary sequence motifs. A survey of minisatellite variation in four species of the A. palustris lineage revealed several haplotypes that differed not only in repeat number, but also in repeat organization. A haplotype network suggests that three different minisatellite loci evolved independently at the same position in the tRNA(LEU) intron. A secondary structure model revealed that the A. palustris minisatellite repeat forms a stem region of the tRNA(LEU) intron, which allows its notable expansion without negatively affecting splicing. Minisatellite variation was high in the two examined A. palustris populations where 20 haplotypes were detected, whereas no length variation was detected in a neighboring poly (A) microsatellite locus. We estimated a chloroplast minisatellite mutation rate of 3.2 x 10(-3) mutations per generation. Southern blot analyses did not find evidence for chloroplast heter-oplasmy. Based on the analysis of the largest known, extant A. palustris population, a stepwise mutation model (SMM) was inferred.

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

4.3
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