Using plastid genome-scale data to resolve enigmatic relationships among basal angiosperms

被引:555
作者
Moore, Michael J.
Bell, Charles D.
Soltis, Pamela S.
Soltis, Douglas E.
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Dept Bot, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
[2] Univ Florida, Florida Museum Nat Hist, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
[3] Univ New Orleans, Dept Biol Sci, New Orleans, LA 70149 USA
关键词
Ceratophyllum; molecular dating; phylogenetics; mesangiosperms;
D O I
10.1073/pnas.0708072104
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Although great progress has been made in clarifying deep-level angiosperm relationships, several early nodes in the angiosperm branch of the Tree of Life have proved difficult to resolve. Perhaps the last great question remaining in basal angiosperm phylogeny involves the branching order among the five major clades of mesangiosperms (Ceratophyllum, Chloranthaceae, eudicots, magnoliids, and monocots). Previous analyses have found no consistent support for relationships among these clades. In an effort to resolve these relationships, we performed phylogenetic analyses of 61 plastid genes (approximate to 42,000 bp) for 45 taxa, including members of all major basal angiosperm lineages. We also report the complete plastid genome sequence of Ceratophyllum demersum. Parsimony analyses of combined and partitioned data sets varied in the placement of several taxa, particularly Ceratophyllum, whereas maximum-likelihood (ML) trees were more topologically stable. Total evidence ML analyses recovered a clade of Chloranthaceae + magnoliids as sister to a well supported clade of monocots + (Ceratophyllum + eudicots). ML bootstrap and Bayesian support values for these relationships were generally high, although approximately unbiased topology tests could not reject several alternative topologies. The extremely short branches separating these five lineages imply a rapid diversification estimated to have occurred between 143.8 +/- 4.8 and 140.3 +/- 4.8 Mya.
引用
收藏
页码:19363 / 19368
页数:6
相关论文
共 58 条
[11]  
Feild TS, 2004, PALEOBIOLOGY, V30, P82, DOI 10.1666/0094-8373(2004)030<0082:DADANI>2.0.CO
[12]  
2
[13]   CASES IN WHICH PARSIMONY OR COMPATIBILITY METHODS WILL BE POSITIVELY MISLEADING [J].
FELSENSTEIN, J .
SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY, 1978, 27 (04) :401-410
[14]  
FELSENSTEIN J, 1985, EVOLUTION, V39, P783, DOI 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x
[15]   When Earth started blooming: insights from the fossil record [J].
Friis, EM ;
Pedersen, KR ;
Crane, PR .
CURRENT OPINION IN PLANT BIOLOGY, 2005, 8 (01) :5-12
[16]   Utility of 17 chloroplast genes for inferring the phylogeny of the basal angiosperms [J].
Graham, SW ;
Olmstead, RG .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY, 2000, 87 (11) :1712-1730
[17]   Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? [J].
Graybeal, A .
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY, 1998, 47 (01) :9-17
[18]   Is sparse taxon sampling a problem for phylogenetic inference? [J].
Hillis, DM ;
Pollock, DD ;
McGuire, JA ;
Zwickl, DJ .
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY, 2003, 52 (01) :124-126
[19]   Angiosperm phylogeny based on matK sequence information [J].
Hilu, KW ;
Borsch, T ;
Müller, K ;
Soltis, DE ;
Soltis, PS ;
Savolainen, V ;
Chase, MW ;
Powell, MP ;
Alice, LA ;
Evans, R ;
Sauquet, H ;
Neinhuis, C ;
Slotta, TAB ;
Rohwer, JG ;
Campbell, CS ;
Chatrou, LW .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY, 2003, 90 (12) :1758-1776
[20]   PERFORMANCE OF PHYLOGENETIC METHODS IN SIMULATION [J].
HUELSENBECK, JP .
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY, 1995, 44 (01) :17-48