Inference of phylogenetic relationships among key angiosperm lineages using a compatibility method on a molecular data set

Journal of Systematics and Evolution

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 130-141

  Qiu, Yin Long ^a   Estabrook, George F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Angiosperm; Ceratophyllum; Character analysis; Chloranthaceae; Compatibility; Eudicots; Magnoliids; Monocots; Phylogenetic method; Phylogeny

Indexed keywords

CERATOPHYLLUM; CHLORANTHACEAE; LILIOPSIDA; MAGNOLIIDS; MAGNOLIOPHYTA;

EID: 48549092314     PISSN: 16744918     EISSN: 17596831     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1002.2008.07165     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Boulter D, Peacock D, Guise A, Gleaves JT, Estabrook G. 1979. Relationships between the partial amino-acid sequences of plastocyanin from members of ten families of flowering plants. Phytochemistry 18: 603-608.
2. Brinkmann H, Philippe H. 1999. Archaea sister group of bacteria? Indications from tree reconstruction artifacts in ancient phytogenies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 16: 817-825.
3. Burleigh J, Mathews S. 2004. Phylogenetic signal in nucleotide data from seed plants: implications for resolving the seed plant tree of life. American Journal of Botany 91: 1599-1613.
4. Camin JH, Sokal RR. 1965. A method for deducing branching sequences in phytogeny. Evolution 19: 311-326.
5. Chase MW, Soltis DE, Olmstead RG, Morgan D, Les DH, Mishler BD, Duvall MR, Price RA, Hills HG, Qiu Y-L, Kron KA, Rettig JH, Conti E, Palmer JD, Manhart JR, Sytsma KJ, Michaels HJ, Kress WJ, Karol KG, Clark WD, Hedren M, Gaut BS, Jansen RK, Kim K-J, Wimpee CF, Smith JF, Furnier GR, Strauss SH, Xiang Q-Y, Plunkett GM, Soltis PS, Swensen S, Williams SE, Gadek PA, Quinn CJ, Eguiarte LE, Golenberg E, Learn GH Jr, Graham SW, Barrett SCH, Dayanandan S, Albert VA. 1993. Phylogenetics of seed plants: an analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid gene rbcL. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 80: 528-580.
6. Cho Y, Mower JP, Qiu Y-L, Palmer JD. 2004. Mitochondrial substitution rates are extraordinarily elevated and variable in a genus of flowering plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101: 17741-17746.
7. Cronquist A. 1981. An integrated system of classification of flowering plants. New York: Columbia University Press.
8. Day WHE, Estabrook GF, McMorris FR. 1998. Measuring the phylogenetic randomness of biological data sets. Systematic Biology 47: 604-616.
9. Donoghue MJ, Doyle JA. 1989. Phylogenetic analysis of angiosperms and the relationships of Hamamelidae. In: Crane PR, Blackmore S eds. Evolution, systematics, and fossil history of the Hamamelidae. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 17-45.
10. Doyle JA, Endress PK. 2000. Morphological phylogenetic analysis of basal angiosperms: Comparison and combination with molecular data. International Journal of Plant Sciences 161: S121-S153.
11. Eklund H, Doyle JA, Herendeen PS. 2004. Morphological phylogenetic analysis of living and fossil Chloranthaceae. International Journal of Plant Sciences 165: 107-151.
12. Estabrook GF. 1972a. Cladistic methodology: a discussion of the theoretical basis for the induction of evolutionary history. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3: 427-456.
13. Estabrook GF. 1972b. Theoretical concepts in systematic and evolutionary studies. Progress in Theoretical Biology 2: 23-86.
14. Estabrook GF. 1983. The causes of incompatibility. In: Felsenstein J ed. Numerical taxonomy. NATO ASI Series G. #1. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 279-295.
15. Estabrook GF. 1997. Ancestor-descendant relations and incompatible data: motivation for research in discrete mathematics. In: Mirkin B, McMorris FR, Roberts FS, Rzhetsky A eds. Mathematical hierarchies and biology. Providence, Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society. 1-28.
16. Estabrook GF. 2008. Fifty years of character compatibility concepts at work. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 46: 109-129.
17. Estabrook GF, Anderson WR. 1978. An estimate of phylogenetic relationships within the genus Crusea (Rubiaceae) using character compatibility analysis. Systematic Botany 3: 179-196.
18. Estabrook GF, Johnson CS, McMorris FR. 1975. An idealized concept of the true cladistic character. Mathematical Biosciences 23: 263-272.
19. Estabrook GF, Johnson CS, McMorris FR. 1976a. An algebraic analysis of cladistic characters. Discrete Mathematics 16: 141-147.
20. Estabrook GF, Johnson CS, McMorris FR. 1976b. A mathematical foundation for analysis of cladistic character compatibility. Mathematical Biosciences 29: 181-187.
21. Estabrook GF, Landrum L. 1975. A simple test for the possible simultaneous divergence of two amino acid positions. Taxon 24: 609-613.
22. Estabrook GF, McMorris FR. 1977. When are two qualitative taxonomic characters compatible? Journal of Mathematical Biology 4: 195-200.
23. Estabrook GF, McMorris FR. 1980. When is one estimate of evolutionary relationships a refinement of another? Journal of Mathematical Biology 10: 367-373.
24. Estabrook GF, Meacham CA. 1980. How to determine the compatibility of undirected character state trees. Mathematical Biosciences 46: 251-256.
25. Estabrook GF, Strauch JG Jr, Fiala KL. 1977. An application of compatibility analysis to the Blackiths' data on Orthopteroid insects. Systematic Zoology 26: 269-276.
26. Felsenstein J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Systematic Zoology 27: 401-410.
27. Felsenstein J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies-an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39: 783-791.
28. Felsenstein J. 2004. Inferring phylogenies. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer.
29. Fitch WM. 1975. Toward finding the tree of maximum parsimony. In: Estabrook GF ed. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. 189-230.
30. Friis EM, Crane PR, Pedersen KR. 1986. Floral evidence for Cretaceous chloranthoid angiosperms. Nature 320: 163-164.
31. Friis EM, Pedersen KR, Crane PR. 1999. Early angiosperm diversification: The diversity of pollen associated with angiosperm reproductive structures in Early Cretaceous floras from Portugal. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 86: 259-296.
32. Graham SW, Olmstead RG. 2000. Utility of 17 plastid genes for inferring the phylogeny of the basal angiosperms. American Journal of Botany 87: 1712-1730.
33. Guindon S, Gascuel O. 2003. A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Systematic Biology 52: 696-704.
34. Gupta RS, Sneath PHA. 2007. Application of the character compatibility approach to generalized molecular sequence data: Branching order of the proteobacterial subdivisions. Journal of Molecular Evolution 64: 90-100.
35. Hennig W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
36. Hillis DM, Huelsenbeck JP, Cunningham CW. 1994. Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies. Science 264: 671-677.
37. 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. 2003. Angiosperm phylogeny based on matK sequence information. American Journal of Botany 90: 1758-1776.
38. Kolaczkowski B, Thornton JW. 2004. Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous. Nature 431: 980-984.
39. Le Quesne WJ. 1969. A method of selection of characters in numerical taxonomy. Systematic Zoology 18: 201-205.
40. Leebens-Mack J, Raubeson LA, Cui LY, Kuehl JV, Fourcade MH, Chumley TW, Boore JL, Jansen RK, dePamphilis CW. 2005. Identifying the basal angiosperm node in chloroplast genome phylogenies: Sampling one's way out of the Felsenstein zone. Molecular Biology and Evolution 22: 1948-1963.
41. Lemieux C, Otis C, Turmel M. 2007. A clade uniting the green algae Mesostigma viride and Chlorokybus atmophyticus represents the deepest branch of the Streptophyta in chloroplast genome-based phylogenies. BMC Biology 5: 2.
42. Meacham CA. 1980. Phylogeny of the Berberidaceae with an evaluation of classifications. Systematic Botany 5: 149-172.
43. Meacham CA. 1981. A probability measure for character compatibility. Mathematical Biosciences 57: 1-18.
44. Meacham CA. 1983. Theoretical and computational considerations of the compatibility of qualitative taxonomic characters. In: Felsenstein J ed. Numerical taxonomy. NATO ASI Series G. #1. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 304-314.
45. Meacham CA. 1984. Evaluating characters by character compatibility analysis. In: Duncan TO, Stuessy TF eds. Cladistics: Perspectives on the reconstruction of evolutionary history. New York: Columbia University Press. 152-165.
46. Meacham CA. 1994. Phylogenetic relationships at the basal radiation of angiosperms: further study by probability of character compatibility. Systematic Botany 19: 506-522.
47. Meacham CA, Estabrook GF. 1985. Compatibility methods in systematics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16:431-446.
48. Moore MJ, Bell CD, Soltis PS, Soltis DE. 2007. Using plastid genome-scale data to resolve enigmatic relationships among basal angiosperms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104: 19363-19368.
49. Nei M, Kumar S, Takahashi K. 1998. The optimization principle in phylogenetic analysis tends to give incorrect topologies when the number of nucleotides or amino acids used is small. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95: 12390-12397.
50. Parkinson CL, Mower JP, Qiu Y-L, Shirk AJ, Song KM, Young ND, dePamphilis CW, Palmer JD. 2005. Multiple major increases and decreases in mitochondrial substitution rates in the plant family Geraniaceae. BMC Evolutionary Biology 5: 73.
51. Philippe H, Lopez P, Brinkmann H, Budin K, Germot A, Laurent J, Moreira D, Muller M, Le Guyader H. 2000. Early-branching or fast-evolving eukaryotes? An answer based on slowly evolving positions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 267: 1213-1221.
52. Pisani D. 2004. Identifying and removing fast-evolving sites using compatibility analysis: An example from the Arthropoda. Systematic Biology 53: 978-989.
53. Posada D, Crandall KA. 1998. MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14: 817-818.
54. Qiu Y-L, Chase MW, Hoot SB, Conti E, Crane PR, Sytsma KJ, Parks CR. 1998. Phylogenetics of the Hamamelidae and their allies: Parsimony analyses of nucleotide sequences of the plastid gene rbcL. International Journal of Plant Sciences 159: 891-905.
55. Qiu Y-L, Li L, Hendry TA, Li R, Taylor DW, Issa MJ, Ronen AJ, Vekaria ML, White AM. 2006a. Reconstructing the basal angiosperm phytogeny: evaluating information content of the mitochondrial genes. Taxon 55: 837-856.
56. Qiu Y-L, Lee J, Bernasconi-Quadroni F, Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Zanis M, Zimmer EA, Chen Z, Savolainen V, Chase MW. 1999. The earliest angiosperms: evidence from mitochondrial, plastid and nuclear genomes. Nature 402: 404-407.
57. Qiu Y-L, Dombrovska O, Lee J, Li L, Whitlock BA, Bernasconi-Quadroni F, Rest JS, Davis CC, Borsch T, Hilu KW, Renner SS, Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Zanis MJ, Cannone JJ, Gutell RR, Powell M, Savolainen V, Chatrou LW, Chase MW. 2005. Phylogenetic analysis of basal angiosperms based on nine plastid, mitochondrial, and nuclear genes. International Journal of Plant Sciences 166: 815-842.
58. Qiu Y-L, Li L, Wang B, Chen Z, Knoop V, Groth-Malonek M, Dombrovska O, Lee J, Kent L, Rest J, Estabrook GF, Hendry TA, Taylor DW, Testa CM, Ambros M, Crandall-Stotler B, Duff RJ, Stech M, Frey W, Quandt D, Davis CC. 2006b. The deepest divergences in land plants inferred from phylogenomic evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103: 15511-15516.
59. Sneath PHA, Sackin MJ, Ambler RP. 1975. Detecting evolutionary incompatibilities from protein sequences. Systematic Zoology 24: 311-332.
60. Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Chase MW, Mort ME, Albach DC, Zanis M, Savolainen V, Hahn WH, Hoot SB, Fay MF, Axtell M, Swensen SM, Prince LM, Kress WJ, Nixon KC, Farris JS. 2000. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from 18S rDNA, rbcL, and atpB sequences. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 133: 381-461.
61. Stefanovic S, Rice DW, Palmer JD. 2004. Long branch attraction, taxon sampling, and the earliest angiosperms: Amborella or monocots? BMC Evolutionary Biology 4: 35.
62. Swofford DL. 2003. PAUP*4.0b10: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer.
63. Wiley EO. 1981. Phylogenetics: The theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
64. Wilson EO. 1965. A consistency test for phytogenies based on contemporaneous species. Systematic Zoology 14: 214-220.
65. Wolf PG, Karol KG, Mandoli DF, Kuehl J, Arumuganathan K, Ellis MW, Mishler BD, Kelch DG, Olmstead RG, Boore JL. 2005. The first complete chloroplast genome sequence of a lycophyte, Huperzia lucidula (Lycopodiaceae). Gene 350: 117-128.
66. Zanis MJ, Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Mathews S, Donoghue MJ. 2002. The root of the angiosperms revisited. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 6848-6853.