Fossil calibration of molecular divergence infers a moderate mutation rate and recent radiations for Pinus

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 90-101

  Ann, Willyard ^a   Syring, John ^b   Gernandt, David S ^c   Liston, Aaron ^a   Cronn, Richard ^d  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DEL ESTADO DE HIDALGO   (Mexico)

^d PACIFIC NORTHWEST RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Chronogram; Fossils; Molecular evolution; Pinus; Silent substitution rates

Indexed keywords

ANGIOSPERM; ARTICLE; CHLOROPLAST; CONTROLLED STUDY; EOCENE; FOSSIL PLANT; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOME; HOMOPLASY; MIOCENE; MUTATION RATE; NONHUMAN; OLIGOCENE; PHYLOGENY; PINE;

MAGNOLIOPHYTA; PICEA; STROBUS;

EID: 33845866619     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: 15371719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msl131     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Alvin K. 1960. Further conifers of the Pinaceae from the Wealden Formation of Belgium. Inst R Sci Nat Belg Mém. 146:1-39.
2. Axelrod D. 1986. Cenozoic history of some western American pines. Ann Mo Bot Gard. 73:565-641.
3. Blackwell W. 1984. Fossil ponderosa-like pine wood from the Upper Cretaceous of northeast Mississippi. Ann Bot (Lond). 53:133-136.
4. Brown G, Gill G, Kuntz R, Langley C, Neale D. 2004. Nucleotide diversity and linkage disequilibrium in loblolly pine. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 101:15255-15260.
5. Brown G, Kadel E, Bassoni D, Kiehne K, Temesgen B, van Buijtenen J, Sewell M, Marshall K, Neale D. 2001. Anchored reference loci in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) for integrating pine genomics. Genetics. 159:799-809.
6. Chagné D, Brown G, Lalanne C, Madur D, Pot D, Neale D, Plomion C. 2003. Comparative genome and QTL mapping between maritime and loblolly pines. Mol Breed. 12:185-195.
7. Clark R, Tavaré S, Doebley J. 2005. Estimating a nucleotide substitution rate for maize from polymorphism at a major domestication locus. Mol Biol Evol. 22:2304-2312.
8. Cunningham C. 1997. Can three incongruence tests predict when data should be combined? Mol Biol Evol. 14:733-740.
9. Dvornyk V, Sirviö A, Mikkonen M, Savolainen O. 2002. Low nucleotide diversity at the pal1 locus in the widely distributed Pinus sylvestris. Mol Biol Evol. 19:178-188.
10. Eckert A, Hall B. 2006. Phylogeny, historical biogeography, and patterns of diversification for Pinus (Pinaceae): phylogenetic tests of fossil-based hypotheses. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 40:166-182.
11. Erwin D, Schorn H. 2006. Pinus baileyi (Section Pinus, Pinaceae) from the Paleogene of Idaho, USA. Am J Bot. 93:197-205.
12. Fliche P. 1896. Etude sur la flore fossile de l'Argonne (Albien-Cénomanien). France: Nancy.
13. García-Gil M, Mikkonen M, Savolainen O. 2003. Nucleotide diversity at two phytochrome loci along a latitudinal cline in Pinus sylvestris. Mol Ecol. 12:1195-1206.
14. Gaut B, Morton B, McCaig B, Clegg M. 1996. Substitution rate comparisons between grasses and palms: synonymous rate differences at the nuclear gene Adh parallel rate differences at the plastid gene rbcL. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 93:10274-10279.
15. Gaut B, Muse S, Clark W, Clegg M. 1992. Relative rates of nucleotide substitution at the rbcL locus of monocotyledonous plants. J Mol Evol. 35:292-303.
16. Geada López G, Kamiya K, Harada K. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships of diploxylon pines (subgenus Pinus) based on plastid sequence data. Int J Plant Sci. 163:737-747.
17. Gernandt D, Geada López G, Ortiz García S, Liston A. 2005. Phylogeny and classification of Pinus. Taxon. 54:29-42.
18. Govindaraju D, Lewis P, Cullis C. 1992. Phylogenetic analysis of pines using ribosomal DNA restriction fragment polymorphisms. Plant Syst Evol. 179:141-153.
19. Gradstein F, Ogg J. 2004. Geologic time scale 2004: why, how and where next! Lethaia. 37:175-181.
20. Hall T. 1999. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser. 41:95-98.
21. Hart J. 1987. A cladistic analysis of conifers: preliminary results. J Arnold Arbor. 68:269-307.
22. Haubold B, Wiehe T. 2001. Statistics of divergence times. Mol Biol Evol. 18:1157-1160.
23. Hudson R. 1960. The anatomy of the genus Pinus in relation to its classification. J Inst Wood Sci. 6:26-46.
24. Jeffrey E. 1908. On the structure of the leaf in Cretaceous pines. Ann Bot (Lond). 22:207-220.
25. Kärkkäinen K, Koski K, Savolainen O. 1996. Geographical variation in the inbreeding depression of Scots pine. Evolution. 50:111-119.
26. Kay K, Whittall J, Hodges S. 2006. A survey of nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer substitution rates across angiosperms: an approximate molecular clock with life history effects. Evol Biol. 6:36-44.
27. Klekowski E. 1992. Review: mutation rates in diploid annuals - are they immutable? Int J Plant Sci. 153:462-465.
28. Klekowski E. 1998. Mutation rates in mangroves and other plants. Genetica. 102:325-331.
29. Klekowski E, Godfrey P. 1989. Ageing and mutation in plants. Nature. 340:389-391.
30. Koch M, Haubold B, Mitchell-Olds T. 2000. Comparative evolutionary analysis of chalcone synthase and alcohol dehydrogenase loci in Arabidopsis, Arabis, and related genera (Brassicaceae). Mol Biol Evol. 17:1483-1498.
31. Komulainen P, Brown G, Mikkonen M, Karhu A, García-Gil M, O'Malley D, Lee B, Neale D, Savolainen O. 2003. Comparing EST based genetic maps between Pinus sylvestris and P. taeda. Theor Appl Genet. 107:667-678.
32. Kossack D, Kinlaw C. 1999. IFG, a gypsy-like retrotransposon in Pinus (Pinaceae), has an extensive history in pines. Plant Mol Biol. 39:417-426.
33. Koteja J, Poinar G. 2001. A new family, genus, and species of scale insect (Hemiptera: Coccinea: Kukaspididae, new family) from Cretaceous Alaskan amber. Proc Entomol Soc Wash. 103:356-363.
34. Krupkin A, Liston A, Strauss S. 1996. Phylogenetic analysis of the hard pines (Pinus subgenus Pinus, Pinaceae) from chloroplast DNA restriction site analysis. Am J Bot. 83:489-498.
35. Krutovsky K, Troggio M, Brown G, Jermstad K, Neale D. 2004. Comparative mapping in the Pinaceae. Genetics. 168:447-461.
36. Kumar S, Filipski A, Swarna V, Walker A, Hedges S. 2005. Placing confidence limits on the molecular age of the human-chimpanzee divergence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 102:18842-18847.
37. Kutil B, Williams C. 2001. Triplet-repeat microsatellites shared among hard and soft pines. J Hered. 92:327-332.
38. Lande R, Schemske D, Schultz S. 1994. High inbreeding depression, selective interference among loci, and the threshold selfing rate for purging recessive lethal mutations. Evolution. 48:965-978.
39. Langenheim R, Smiley C, Gray J. 1960. Cretaceous amber from the Arctic coastal plain of Alaska. Geol Soc Am Bull. 71:1345-1356.
40. Ma X-F, Szmidt AE, Wang X-R. 2006. Genetic structure and evolutionary history of a diploid hybrid pine Pinus densata inferred from the nucleotide variation at seven gene loci. Mol Biol Evol. 23:807-816.
41. Magallón S, Sanderson M. 2001. Absolute diversification rates in angiosperm clades. Evolution. 55:1762-1780.
42. Magallón S, Sanderson M. 2005. Angiosperm divergence times: the effect of genes, codon positions, and time constraints. Evolution. 59:1653-1670.
43. Mai D. 1986. Über typen und originale tertiärer arten von Pinus L. (Pinaceae) in mitteleuropÜäischen sammlungen - ein beitrag zur geschichte der gattung in Europa. Feddes Repert. 97:571-605.
44. Meijer J. 2000. Fossil woods from the late Cretaceous Aachen Formation. Rev Palaeobot Palynol. 112:297-336.
45. Millar C. 1998. Early evolution of pines. In: Richardson D, editor. Ecology and biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. p. 69-91.
46. Miller C. 1973. Silicified cones and vegetative remains of Pinus from the Eocene of British Columbia. Contrib Mus Paleontol Univ Mich. 24:101-118.
47. Miller C. 1976. Early evolution in the Pinaceae. Rev Palaeobot Palynol. 21:101-117.
48. Miller C, Malinky J. 1986. Seed cones of Pinus from the late Cretaceous of New Jersey, USA. Rev Palaeobot Palynol. 46:257-272.
49. Muse S. 2000. Examining rates and patterns of nucleotide substitution in plants. Plant Mol Biol. 42:25-43.
50. Muse S, Weir B. 1992. Testing for equality of evolutionary rates. Genetics. 132:269-276.
51. Near T, Meylan P, Shaffer H. 2005. Assessing concordance of fossil calibration points in molecular clock studies: an example using turtles. Am Nat. 165:137-146.
52. Nei M, Gojobori T. 1986. Simple methods for estimating the numbers of synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide substitutions. Mol Biol Evol. 3:418-426.
53. Penny J. 1947. Studies on the conifers of the Magothy flora. Am J Bot. 34:281-296.
54. Phipps C, Osborn J, Stockey R. 1995. Pinus pollen cones from the middle Eocene Princeton chert (Allenby formation) of British Columbia. Int J Plant Sci. 156:117-124.
55. Posada D, Crandall K. 1998. Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics. 14:817-818.
56. Prager E, Fowler D, Wilson A. 1976. Rates of evolution in conifers (Pinaceae). Evolution. 30:637-649.
57. Price R, Liston A, Strauss S. 1998. Phylogeny and systematics of Pinus. In: Richardson D, editor. Ecology and biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. p. 49-68.
58. Robison C. 1977. Pinus triphylla and Pinus quinquefolia from the upper Cretaceous of Massachusetts. Am J Bot. 64:726-732.
59. Rozas J, Sánchez-DelBarrio J, Messeguer X, Rozas R. 2003. DnaSP, DNA sequence polymorphism analyses by the coalescent and other methods. Bioinformatics. 19:2496-2497.
60. Saiki K. 1996. Pinus mutoi (Pinaceae), a new species of permineralized seed cone from the Upper Cretaceous of Hokkaido, Japan. Am J Bot. 83:1630-1636.
61. Sanderson M. 2002. Estimating absolute rates of molecular evolution and divergence times: a penalized likelihood approach. Mol Biol Evol. 19:101-109.
62. Sanderson M, Doyle J. 2001. Sources of error and confidence intervals in estimating the age of angiosperms from rbcL and 18s rDNA data. Am J Bot. 88:1499-1516.
63. Scofield D, Schultz S. 2006. Mitosis, stature and evolution of plant mating systems: low-Φ and high-Φ plants. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol. 273:275-282.
64. Shaw G. 1914. The genus Pinus. Cambridge (MA): Riverside Press.
65. Smith S, Stockey R. 2002. Permineralized pine cones from the Cretaceous of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Int J Plant Sci. 163:185-196.
66. Sokol K, Williams C. 2005. Evolution of a triplet repeat in a conifer. Genome. 48:417-426.
67. Stockey R, Nishida M. 1986. Pinus harborensis sp. nov. and affinities of permineralized leaves from the Upper Cretaceous. Can J Bot. 64:1856-1866.
68. Stopes M, Kershaw E. 1910. The anatomy of Cretaceous pine leaves. Ann Bot (Lond). 24:395-402.
69. Strauss S, Doerksen A. 1990. Restriction fragment analysis of pine phylogeny. Evolution. 44:1081-1096.
70. Swofford DL. 2002. PAUP*: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.
71. Syring J, Farrell K, Businský R, Cronn R, Liston A. Forthcoming 2007. Widespread genealogical nonmonophyly in species of Pinus subgenus Strobus. Syst Biol.
72. Syring J, Willyard A, Cronn R, Liston A. 2005. Evolutionary relationships among Pinus (Pinaceae) subsections inferred from multiple low-copy nuclear loci. Am J Bot. 92:2086-2100.
73. Temesgen B, Brown G, Harry D, Kinlaw C, Sewell M, Neale D. 2001. Genetic mapping of expressed sequence tag polymorphism (ESTP) markers in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Theor Appl Genet. 102:664-675.
74. Thompson J, Higgins D, Gibson T. 1994. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 22:4673-4680.
75. Van der Burgh J. 1973. Hölzer der niederrheinischen braunkohlenformation, 2. Hölzer der braunkohlengruben "Maria Theresia" zu herzogenrath, "zukunft west" zu eschweiler und "victor" (zülpich mitte) zu zülpich. Nebst einer systematisch-anatomischen bearbeitung der gattung Pinus L. Rev Palaeobot Palynol. 15:73-275.
76. Wang X-Q, Tank D, Sang T. 2000. Phylogeny and divergence times in Pinaceae: evidence from three genomes. Mol Biol Evol. 17:773-781.
77. Wolfe K, Li W-H, Sharp P. 1987. Rates of nucleotide substitution vary greatly among plant mitochondrial, chloroplast, and nuclear DNAs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 84:9054-9058.
78. Wolfe J, Schorn H. 1989. Taxonomic revision of the Spermatopsida of the Oligocene Creede flora, southern Colorado. US Geol Surv Bull. 1923:1-40.
79. Wolfe K, Sharp P, Li W-H. 1989. Rates of synonymous substitution in plant nuclear genes. J Mol Evol. 29:208-211.
80. Yang Z, Rannala B. 2006. Bayesian estimation of species divergence times under a molecular clock using multiple fossil calibrations with soft bounds. Mol Biol Evol. 23:212-226.