The position of gnetales among seed plants: Overcoming pitfalls of chloroplast phylogenomics

Molecular Biology and Evolution

Volumn 27, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 2855-2863

  Zhong, Bojian ^a,d   Yonezawa, Takahiro ^a   Zhong, Yang ^a,b   Hasegawa, Masami ^a,c  

^a FUDAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b TIBET UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c INSTITUTE OF STATISTICAL MATHEMATICS   (Japan)

^d MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Gnetales; long branch attraction; maximum likelihood; model of amino acid substitutions; parallel evolution

Indexed keywords

PROTEIN;

AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTION; ARTICLE; CHLOROPLAST; CONIFER; GENOME; GENOMICS; GNETALE; JAPANESE CEDAR; LONG BRANCH ATTRACTION; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; NONHUMAN; PHYLOGENY; PLANT; PLANT SEED; TAXON;

AMINO ACID SUBSTITUTION; CHLOROPLASTS; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENES, PLANT; GENOME, CHLOROPLAST; GNETOPHYTA; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MOLECULAR SEQUENCE DATA; PHYLOGENY; PINACEAE; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

CONIFEROPHYTA; CRYPTOMERIA; GNETALES; PINACEAE; SPERMATOPHYTA;

EID: 78649362791     PISSN: 07374038     EISSN: 15371719     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msq170     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Adachi J, Hasegawa M. 1996. MOLPHY version 2.3: programs for molecular phylogenetics based on maximum likelihood. Compt Sci Monogr Inst Statist Math Tokyo. 28:1-150.
2. Adachi J, Waddell PJ, Martin W, Hasegawa M. 2000. Plastid genome phylogeny and a model of amino acid substitution for proteins encoded by chloroplast DNA. J Mol Evol. 50:348-358.
3. Akaike H. 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN, Csaki F, editors. Second International Symposium on Information Theory. Budapest (Hungary): Akademiai Kiado. p. 267-281.
4. Bapteste E, Brinkmann H, Lee JA, et al. (11 co-authors). 2002. The analysis of 100 genes supports the grouping of three highly divergent amoebae: Dictyostelium, Entamoeba, and Mastigamoeba. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 99:1414-1419.
5. Bowe LM, Coat G, dePamphilis CW. 2000. Phylogeny of seed plants based on all three genomic compartments: extant gymnosperms are monophyletic and Gnetales' closest relatives are conifers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 97:4092-4097.
6. Braukmann TW, Kuzmina M, Stefanovic S. 2009. Loss of all plastid ndh genes in Gnetales and conifers: extent and evolutionary significance for the seed plant phylogeny. Curr Genet. 55:323-337.
7. Burleigh JG, Mathews S. 2004. Phylogenetic signal in nucleotide data from seed plants: implications for resolving the seed plant tree of life. Am J Bot. 91:1599-1613.
8. Castoe TA, de Koning AP, Kim HM, Gu W, Noonan BP, Naylor G, Jiang ZJ, Parkinson CL, Pollock DD. 2009. Evidence for an ancient adaptive episode of convergent molecular evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 106:8986-8991.
9. Chaw SM, Parkinson CL, Cheng Y, Vincent TM, Palmer JD. 2000. Seed plant phylogeny inferred from all three plant genomes: monophyly of extant gymnosperms and origin of Gnetales from conifers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 97:4086-4091.
10. Chaw SM, Zharkikh A, Sung HM, Lau TC, Li WH. 1997. Molecular phylogeny of extant gymnosperms and seed plant evolution: analysis of nuclear 18S rRNA sequences. Mol Biol Evol. 14:56-68.
11. 4 photosynthesis evolved in grasses via parallel adaptivegenetic changes. Curr Biol. 17:1241-1247.
12. Chumley TW, McCoy SKR, Raubeson LA. 2008. Gnedeep: ExploringGnetalean affinities in seed plant phylogeny with 83 plastidgenes. Botany 2008: Joint Annual Meeting of Canadian BotanicalAssociationAmerican Fern Society, American Society of PlantTaxonomists, and the Botanical Society of America. Vancouver,British Columbia (Canada). Available form: http://2008.botany- conference.org/engine/search/index.php?func5detail&aid5770.
13. Dayhoff MO, Schwartz RM, Orcutt BC. 1978. A model of evolutionary change in proteins. In: Dayhoff MO, editor. Atlasof protein sequence and structure. Washington (DC): NationalBiomedical Research Foundation. Vol. 5. p. 345-352.
14. Donoghue MJ, Doyle JA. 2000. Seed plant phylogeny: demise of theanthophyte hypothesis. Curr Biol. 10:R106-R109.
15. Doyle JA. 2006. Seed ferns and the origin of angiosperms. J TorreyBot Soc. 133:169-209.
16. Doyle JA, Donoghue MJ. 1986. Seed plant phylogeny and the originof angiosperms: an experimental cladistic approach. Bot Rev.52:321-431.
17. Felsenstein J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony and compatibilitymethods will be positively misleading. Syst Zool. 27:401-410.
18. Foster PG. 2004. Modeling compositional heterogeneity. Syst Biol.53:485-495.
19. Gadagkar SR, Rosenberg MS, Kumar S. 2005. Inferring speciesphylogenies from multiple genes: concatenated sequence treeversus consensus gene tree. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 304:64-74.
20. Graham SW, Iles WJD. 2009. Different gymnosperm outgroup have(mostly) congruent signal regarding the root of flowering plantphylogeny. Am J Bot. 96:216-227.
21. Graybeal A. 1998. Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficultphylogenetic problem? Syst Biol. 47:9-17.
22. Hajibabaei M, Xia J, Drouin G. 2006. Seed plant phylogeny:gnetophytes are derived conifers and a sister group to Pinaceae.Mol Phylogenet Evol. 40:208-217.
23. Hedtke SM, Townsend TM, Hillis DM. 2006. Resolution ofphylogenetic conflict in large data sets by increased taxonsampling. Syst Biol. 55:522-529.
24. Hendy M, Penny D. 1989. A framework for the quantitative study ofevolutionary trees. Syst Zool. 38:297-309.
25. Hillis DM. 1998. Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, andinvestigator bias. Syst Biol. 47:3-8.
26. Hirao T, Watanabe A, Kurita M, Kondo T. 2008. Completenucleotide sequence of the Cryptomeria japonica D. Don.chloroplast genome and comparative chloroplast genomics:diversified genomic structure of coniferous species. BMC PlantBiol. 8:70.
27. Jansen RK, Cai Z, Raubeson LA, et al. (16 co-authors). 2007. Analysisof 81 genes from 64 plastid genomes resolves relationships inangiosperms and identifies genome-scale evolutionary patterns.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104:19369-19374.
28. Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM. 1992. The rapid generation ofmutation data matrices from protein sequences. CABIOS.8:275-282.
29. Kishino H, Hasegawa M. 1989. Evaluation of the maximumlikelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies fromDNA sequence data, and the branching order in hominoidea. JMol Evol. 29:170-179.
30. Koshi JM, Goldstein RA. 1996. Probabilistic reconstruction ofancestral protein sequences. J Mol Evol. 42:313-320.
31. Li Y, Liu Z, Shi P, Zhang J. 2010. The hearing gene Prestin unitesecholocating bats and whales. Curr Biol. 20:R55-R56.
32. Liu Y, Cotton JA, Shen B, Han X, Rossiter SJ, Zhang S. 2010.Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats anddolphins. Curr Biol. 20:R53-R54.
33. Lockhart PJ, Steel MA, Hendy MD, Penny D. 1994. Recovering evolutionary trees under a more realistic model of sequence evolution. Mol Biol Evol. 11:605-612.
34. Lockhart PJ, Steel MA. 2005. A tale of two processes. Syst Biol. 54:948-951.
35. Martin W, Stoebe B, Goremykin V, Hansmann S, Hasegawa M, Kowallik KV. 1998. Gene transfer to the nucleus and the evolution of chloroplasts. Nature 393:162-165.
36. Mathews S. 2009. Phylogenetic relationships among seed plants: persistent questions and the limits of molecular data. Am J Bot. 96:228-236.
37. McCoy SR, Kuehl JV, Boore JL, Raubeson LA. 2008. The complete plastid genome sequence of Welwitschia mirabilis: an unusually compact plastome with accelerated divergence rates. BMC Evol Biol. 8:130.
38. Moore MJ, Bell CD, Soltis PS, Soltis DE. 2007. Using plastid genome-scale data to resolve enigmatic relationships among basal angiosperms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104:19363-19368.
39. Nickrent DL, Parkinson CL, Palmer JD, DuV RJ. 2000. Multigene phylogeny of land plants with special reference to bryophytes and the earliest land plants. Mol Biol Evol. 17:1885-1895.
40. Nishihara H, Okada N, Hasegawa M. 2007. Rooting the eutherian tree: the power and pitfalls of phylogenomics. Genome Biol. 8:R199.
41. Philippe H, Delsuc F, Brinkmann H, Lartillot N. 2005. Phylogenomics. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 36:541-562.
42. Philippe H, Snell EA, Bapteste E, Lopez P, Holland PW, Casane D. 2004. Phylogenomics of eukaryotes: impact of missing data on large alignments. Mol Biol Evol. 21:1740-1752.
43. Philippe H, Telford M. 2006. Large-scale sequencing and the new animal phylogeny. Trends Ecol Evol. 21:614-620.
44. Phillips MJ, Delsuc F, Penny D. 2004. Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. Mol Biol Evol. 21: 1455-1458.
45. Rai HS, O'Brien HE, Reeves PA, Olmstead RG, Graham SW. 2003. Inference of higher-order relationships in the cycads from a large chloroplast data set. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 29:350-359.
46. Rai HS, Reeves PA, Peakall R, Olmstead RG, Graham SW. 2008. Inference of higher-order conifer relationships from a multi-locus plastid data set. Botany 86:658-669.
47. Rodriguez-Ezpeleta N, Brinkmann H, Roure B, Lartillot N, Lang BF, Philippe H. 2007. Detecting and overcoming systematic errors in genome-scale phylogenies. Syst Biol. 56:389-399.
48. Rogozin IB, Thomson K, Csuros M, Carmel L, Koonin EV. 2008.Homoplasy in genome-wide analysis of rare amino acidreplacements: the molecular-evolutionary basis for Vavilov'slaw of homologous series. Biol Direct. 3:7.
49. Rokas A, Carroll SB. 2008. Frequent and widespread parallelevolution of protein sequences. Mol Biol Evol. 25:1943-1953.
50. Rothwell GW, Serbet R. 1994. Lignophyte phylogeny and theevolution of spermatophytes: a numerical cladistic analysis. SystBot. 19:443-482.
51. Rydin C, Källersjö M, Friis EM. 2002. Seed plant relationships and thesystematic position of Gnetales based on nuclear andchloroplast DNA: conflicting data, rooting problems, and themonophyly of conifers. Int J Plant Sci. 163:197-214.
52. Shimodaira H. 2002. An approximately unbiased test of phyloge-netic tree selection. Syst Biol. 51:492-508.
53. Stamatakis A. 2006. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-basedphylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models.Bioinformatics 22:2688-2690.
54. Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J. 2008. A rapid bootstrapalgorithm for the RAxML web servers. Syst Biol. 57:758-771.
55. Wakasugi T, Tsudzuki J, Ito S, Nakashima K, Tsudzuki T, Sugiura M.1994. Loss of all ndh genes as determined by sequencing theentire chloroplast genome of the black pine Pinus thunbergii.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 91:9794-9798.
56. Wu CS, Lai YT, Lin CP, Wang YN, Chaw SM. 2009. Evolution ofreduced and compact chloroplast genomes (cpDNAs) ingnetophytes: selection towards a lower cost strategy. MolPhylogent Evol. 52:115-124.
57. Wu CS, Wang YN, Liu SM, Chaw SM. 2007. Chloroplast genome(cpDNA) of Cycas taitungensis and 56 cp protein-coding genesof Gnetum parvifolium: insights into cpDNA evolution andphylogeny of extant seed plants. Mol Biol Evol. 24:1366-1379.
58. Yang Z. 1996. Maximum-likelihood models for combined analyses ofmultiple sequence data. J Mol Evol. 42:587-596.
59. Yang Z. 2007. PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximumlikelihood. Mol Biol Evol. 24:1586-1591.
60. Yang Z, Kumar S, Nei M. 1995. A new method of inference of ancestralnucleotide and amino acid sequences. Genetics 141:1641-1650.
61. Zhang J. 2006. Parallel adaptive origins of digestive RNases in Asianand African leaf monkeys. Nat Genet. 38:819-823.
62. Zhong BJ, Yonezawa T, Zhong Y, Hasegawa M. 2009. Episodicevolution and adaptation of chloroplast genomes in ancestralgrasses. PLoS ONE. 4:e5297.