4.2 Article

Phylogeny of the Serrasalmidae (Characiformes) based on mitochondrial DNA sequences

期刊

GENETICS AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 343-351

出版社

SOC BRASIL GENETICA
DOI: 10.1590/S1415-47572008000200030

关键词

piranhas; pacus; D-loop; phylogeny; Bayesian inference

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies based on DNA sequences of mitochondrial (mt) rRNA genes showed three main groups within the subfamily Serrasalminae: (1) a pacu clade of herbivores (Colossoma, Mylossoma, Piaractus); (2) the Wyleus ' clade (Myleus, Mylesinus, Tometes, Ossubtus); and (3) the piranha clacle (Serrasalmus, Pygocentrus, Pygopristis, Pristobtycon, Catoprion, Metynnis). The genus Acnodon was placed as the sister taxon of clade (2+3). However, poor resolution within each clacle was obtained due to low levels of variation among rRNA gene sequences. Complete sequences of the hypervariable mtDNA control region for a total of 45 taxa, and additional sequences of 12S and 16S rRNA from a total of 74 taxa representing all genera in the family are now presented to address intragroup relationships. Control region sequences of several serrasalmid species exhibit tandem repeats of short motifs (12 to 33 bp) in the 3' end of this region, accounting for substantial length variation. Bayesian inference and maximum parsimony analyses of these sequences identify the same groupings as before and provide further evidence to support the following observations: (a) Serrasalmus gouldingi and species of Pristobrycon (non-striolatus) form a monophyletic group that is the sister group to other species of Serrasalmus and Pygocentrus; (b) Catoprion, Pygopristis, and Pristobrycon striolatus form a well supported clacle, sister to the group described above; (c) some taxa assigned to the genus Myloplus (M. asterias, M tiete, M temetzi, and M rubripinnis) form a well supported group whereas other Myloplus species remain with uncertain affinities (d) Mylesinus, Tometes and Myleus setiger form a monophyletic group.

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

4.2
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