Chloroplast phylogenomics indicates that Ginkgo biloba is sister to cycads

Genome Biology and Evolution

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 243-254

  Wu, Chung Shien ^a   Chaw, Shu Miaw ^a   Huang, Ya Yi ^a,b  

^a BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH CENTER   (Taiwan)

^b INSTITUTE OF PLANT AND MICROBIAL BIOLOGY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Chloroplast; Cycads; Ginkgo; Phylogenomics; Seed plants

Indexed keywords

CYCADALES; CYCADOPSIDA; GINKGO BILOBA; GINKGOALES; GNETOPHYTA; GNETOPSIDA; SPERMATOPHYTA;

EID: 84876525951     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17596653     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evt001     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Bergsten J. 2005. A review of long-branch attraction. Cladistics 21: 163-193.
2. 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 U S A. 97:4092-4097.
3. Brenner ED, Stevenson DW, Twigg RW. 2003. Cycads: evolutionary innovations and the role of plant-derived neurotoxins. Trends Plant Sci. 8: 446-452.
4. 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.
5. Chaw SM, Chang CC, Chen HL, Li WH. 2004. Dating the monocot-dicot divergence and the origin of core eudicots using whole chloroplast genomes. J Mol Evol. 58:424-441.
6. 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 U S A. 97:4086-4091.
7. Chaw SM, Walters TW, Chang CC, Hu SH, Chen SH. 2005. A phylogeny of cycads (Cycadales) inferred from chloroplast matK gene, trnK intron, and nuclear rDNA ITS region. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 37: 214-234.
8. 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.
9. Cibrián-Jaramillo A, et al. 2010. Using phylogenomic patterns and gene ontology to identify proteins of importance in plant evolution. Genome Biol Evol. 2:225-239.
10. Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D. 2011. ProtTest 3: fast selection of best-fit models of protein evolution. Bioinformatics 27:1164-1165.
11. Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D. 2012. jModelTest 2: more models, new heuristics and parallel computing. Nat Methods. 9:772.
12. de la Torre-Bá rcena JE, et al. 2009. The impact of outgroup choice and missing data on major seed plant phylogenetics using genome-wide EST data. PLoS One 4: e5764.
13. Delsuc F, Brinkmann H, Philippe H. 2005. Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nat Rev Genet. 6:361-375.
14. Drouin G, Daoud H, Xia J. 2008. Relative rates of synonymous substitutions in the mitochondrial, chloroplast and nuclear genomes of seed plants. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 49:827-831.
15. Dunn CW, et al. 2008. Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature 452:745-749.
16. Edgar RC. 2004. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Res. 32:1792-1797.
17. Finet C, Timme RE, Delwiche CF, Marlé taz F. 2010. Multigene phylogeny of the green lineage reveals the origin and diversification of land plants. Curr Biol. 20:2217-2222.
18. Friedman WE. 1993. The evolutionary history of the seed plant male gametophyte. Trends Ecol Evol. 8:15-21.
19. Goremykin V, et al. 1996. Noncoding sequences from the slowly evolving chloroplast inverted repeat in addition to rbcL data do not support gnetalean affinities of angiosperms. Mol Biol Evol. 13:383-396.
20. Goremykin VV, Hirsch-Ernst KI,Wölfl S, Hellwig FH. 2004. The chloroplast genome of Nymphaea alba: whole-genome analyses and the problem of identifying the most basal angiosperm. Mol Biol Evol. 21: 1445-1454.
21. Goremykin VV, Viola R, Hellwig FH. 2009. Removal of noisy characters from chloroplast genome-scale data suggests revision of phylogenetic placements of Amborella and Ceratophyllum. J Mol Evol. 68: 197-204.
22. Goremykin VV, et al. 2013. The evolutionary root of flowering plants. Syst Biol. 62:50-61.
23. Graham SW, Iles WJ. 2009. Different gymnosperm outgroups have (mostly) congruent signal regarding the root of flowering plant phylogeny. Am J Bot. 96:216-227.
24. 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.
25. Heath T, Hedtke S, Hillis D. 2008. Taxon sampling and the accuracy of phylogenetic analyses. J Syst Evol. 46:239-257.
26. Jansen RK, et al. 2007. Analysis of 81 genes from 64 plastid genomes resolves relationships in angiosperms and identifies genome-scale evolutionary patterns. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 104:19369-19374.
27. Jeffroy O, Brinkmann H, Delsuc F, Philippe H. 2006. Phylogenomics: the beginning of incongruence? Trends Genet. 22:225-231.
28. Karol KG, et al. 2010. Complete plastome sequences of Equisetum arvense and Isoetes flaccida: implications for phylogeny and plastid genome evolution of early land plant lineages. BMC Evol Biol. 10:321.
29. Kostka M, Uzlikova M, Cepicka I, Flegr J. 2008. SlowFaster, a user-friendly program for slow-fast analysis and its application on phylogeny of Blastocystis. BMC Bioinformatics 9:341.
30. Lartillot N, Philippe H. 2008. Improvement of molecular phylogenetic inference and the phylogeny of Bilateria. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 363:1463-1472.
31. Lee EK, et al. 2011. A functional phylogenomic view of the seed plants. PLoS Genet. 7:e1002411.
32. Leigh JW, Lapointe FJ, Lopez P, Bapteste E. 2011. Evaluating phylogenetic congruence in the post-genomic era. Genome Biol Evol. 3: 571-587.
33. Lin CP, Huang JP, Wu CS, Hsu CY, Chaw SM. 2010. Comparative chloroplast genomics reveals the evolution of Pinaceae genera and subfamilies. Genome Biol Evol. 2:504-517.
34. Lin CP, Wu CS, Huang YY, Chaw SM. 2012. Complete chloroplast genome of Ginkgo biloba reveals the mechanism of inverted repeat contraction. Genome Biol Evol. 4:374-381.
35. Martin W, Deusch O, Stawski N, Grünheit N, Goremykin V. 2005. Chloroplast genome phylogenetics: why we need independent approaches to plant molecular evolution. Trends Plant Sci. 10: 203-209.
36. 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 U S A. 104:19363-19268.
37. Moore MJ, Soltis PS, Bell CD, Burleigh JG, Soltis DE. 2010. Phylogenetic analysis of 83 plastid genes further resolves the early diversification of eudicots. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 107:4623-4628.
38. Moore MJ, et al. 2011. Phylogenetic analysis of the plastid inverted repeat for 244 species: insights into deeper-level angiosperm relationships from a long, slowly evolving sequence region. Int J Plant Sci. 172: 541-558.
39. Nock CJ, et al. 2011. Chloroplast genome sequences from total DNA for plant identification. Plant Biotechnol J. 9:328-333.
40. Norstog KJ, Gifford EM, Stevenson DWM. 2004. Comparative development of the spermatozoids of cycads and Ginkgo biloba. Bot Rev. 70: 5-15.
41. Parfrey LW, et al. 2010. Broadly sampled multigene analyses yield a well-resolved eukaryotic tree of life. Syst Biol. 59:518-533.
42. Philippe H, Zhou Y, Brinkmann H, Rodrigue N, Delsuc F. 2005. Heterotachy and long-branch attraction in phylogenetics. BMC Evol Biol. 5:50.
43. Philippe H, et al. 2011. Resolving difficult phylogenetic questions: why more sequences are not enough. PLoS Biol. 9:e1000602.
44. Pick KS, et al. 2010. Improved phylogenomic taxon sampling noticeably affects nonbilaterian relationships. Mol Biol Evol. 27:1983-1987.
45. Pollock DD, Bruno WJ. 2000. Assessing an unknown evolutionary process: effect of increasing site-specific knowledge through taxon addition. Mol Biol Evol. 17:1854-1858.
46. Pollock DD, Zwickl DJ, McGuire JA, Hillis DM. 2002. Increased taxon sampling is advantageous for phylogenetic inference. Syst Biol. 51: 664-671.
47. Qiu YL, et al. 2007. A non-flowering land plant phylogeny inferred from nucleotide sequences of seven chloroplast, mitochondrial and nuclear genes. Int J Plant Sci. 168:691-708.
48. 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.
49. Ran JH, Gao H, Wang XQ. 2010. Fast evolution of the retroprocessed mitochondrial rps3 gene in Conifer II and further evidence for the phylogeny of gymnosperms. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 54:136-149.
50. Regina TM, Quagliariello C. 2010. Lineage-specific group II intron gains and losses of the mitochondrial rps3 gene in gymnosperms. Plant Physiol Biochem. 48:646-654.
51. Rodríguez-Ezpeleta N, et al. 2007. Detecting and overcoming systematic errors in genome-scale phylogenies. Syst Biol. 56:389-399.
52. Ronquist F, et al. 2012. MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst Biol. 61: 539-542.
53. Rudall PJ, Bateman RM. 2010. Defining the limits of flowers: the challenge of distinguishing between the evolutionary products of simple versus compound strobili. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 365:397-409.
54. Rydin C, Källersjö M, Friis EM. 2002. Seed plant relationships and the systematic position of Gnetales based on nuclear and chloroplast DNA: conflicting data, rooting problems, and the monophyly of conifers. Int J Plant Sci. 163:197-214.
55. Sanderson MJ, Shaffer HB. 2002. Troubleshooting molecular phylogenetic analyses. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 33:49-72.
56. Stamatakis A. 2006. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22:2688-2690.
57. Stefanović S, Rice WD, Palmer JD. 2004. Long branch attraction, taxon sampling, and the earliest angiosperms: Amborella or monocots? BMC Evol Biol. 4:35.
58. Stewart CN Jr, Via LE. 1993. A rapid CTAB DNA isolation technique useful for RAPD fingerprinting and other PCR applications. Biotechniques 14: 748-751.
59. Swofford DL. 2002. PAUP: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (and other methods), 4.0 beta. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.
60. Tamura K, et al. 2011. MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol. 28:2731-2739.
61. Telford MJ, Copley RR. 2011. Improving animal phylogenies with genomic data. Trends Genet. 27:186-195.
62. Wang L, et al. 2011. An embryological study and systematic significance of the primitive gymnosperm Ginkgo biloba. J Syst Evol. 49:353-361.
63. Wolfe KH, Li WH, Sharp PM. 1987. Rates of nucleotide substitution vary greatly among plant mitochondrial, chloroplast, and nuclear DNAs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 84:9054-9058.
64. Wu CS, Lai YT, Lin CP, Wang YN, Chaw SM. 2009. Evolution of reduced and compact chloroplast genomes (cpDNAs) in gnetophytes: selection toward a lower-cost strategy. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 52:115-124.
65. Wu CS, Wang YN, Hsu CY, Lin CP, Chaw SM. 2011. Loss of different inverted repeat copies from the chloroplast genomes of Pinaceae and cupressophytes and influence of heterotachy on the evaluation of gymnosperm phylogeny. Genome Biol Evol. 3: 1284-1295.
66. Wu CS,Wang YN, Liu SM, Chaw SM. 2007. Chloroplast genome (cpDNA) of Cycas taitungensis and 56 cp protein-coding genes of Gnetum parvifolium: insights into cpDNA evolution and phylogeny of extant seed plants. Mol Biol Evol. 24:1366-1379.
67. Wyman SK, Jansen RK, Boore JL. 2004. Automatic annotation of organellar genomes with DOGMA. Bioinformatics 20:3252-3255.
68. Zhong B, Yonezawa T, Zhong Y, Hasegawa M. 2010. The position of gnetales among seed plants: overcoming pitfalls of chloroplast phylogenomics. Mol Biol Evol. 27:2855-2863.
69. Zhong B, et al. 2011. Systematic error in seed plant phylogenomics. Genome Biol Evol. 3:1340-1348.
70. Zwickl DJ, Hillis DM. 2002. Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst Biol. 51:588-598.