| Literature DB >> 19558704 |
Sergio Jiménez1, Amy L Lawton-Rauh, Gregory L Reighard, Albert G Abbott, Douglas G Bielenberg.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dormancy associated MADS-box (DAM) genes are candidates for the regulation of growth cessation and terminal bud formation in peach. These genes are not expressed in the peach mutant evergrowing, which fails to cease growth and enter dormancy under dormancy-inducing conditions. We analyzed the phylogenetic relationships among and the rates and patterns of molecular evolution within DAM genes in the phylogenetic context of the MADS-box gene family.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19558704 PMCID: PMC2713236 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2229-9-81
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Figure 1Maximum likelihood rooted tree of 39 . The tree was constructed using nucleotide sequences and a GTR+I+G evolution model. The AGL28 and PtMADS63 sequences were used as outgroups. The numbers at each interior branch indicate bootstrap support of 1000 replicates. Branches with less than 50% bootstrap support are collapsed. Branch lengths are proportional to the number of nucleotide changes.
Figure 2Alignment of predicted amino acid sequences of the MIKC. Sequence comparison was obtained using Clustal X and utilized for tree estimation and ancestral reconstruction. Sequences included M, I, K and C domains. A poplar gene (PtMADS27) was included as outgroup.
Figure 3Schematic overview of introns and exons of the six peach DAM genes. Boxes represent exons scaled to number of base pairs. Lines represent introns. Introns are not drawn to scale, but size is indicated by number of base pairs.
Figure 4Maximum likelihood rooted tree of 6 peach MIKC. Tree was constructed using nucleotide sequences and an HKY evolution model. The PtMADS27 sequence was used as outgroup. The right numbers at each interior branch indicate maximum likelihood bootstrap support, and the left numbers indicate Bayesian clade credibility values of 1000 replicates. Branch lengths are proportional to the number of nucleotide changes. Black circles in the internal nodes correspond to ancestral sequences in the reconstruction experiment described in Figure 5.
Evolutionary analysis of the MIKCC-type MADS-box Arabidopsis, poplar and peach genes
| Site model: One ω ratio for each branch | ||||||
| Nested Model pairs | dN/dSa | Parameters estimatesb | PSSc,d | ℓ | Model comparison [Δdf] | 2ℓd |
| M: free ratio | several | - | - | -17495.098 | Model1 vs. M0 [169] | 590.92*** |
| Site model: One ω ratio for all branches | ||||||
| Nested Model pairs | dN/dSa | Parameters estimatesb | PSSc,d | ℓ | Model comparison [Δdf] | 2ℓd |
| M0: one ratio | 0.137 | ω = 0.14 | -17790.560 | |||
| M3: discrete (k = 3) | 0.155 | p0 = 0.28, p1 = 0.46, p2 = 0.26 | None | -17165.244 | ||
| M3: discrete (k = 2) | 0.151 | p0 = 0.47, p1 = 0.53 | None | -17319.365 | M3 vs. M0 [4] | 1250.63*** |
| M1a: nearlyneutral | 0.341 | p0 = 0.76, p1 = 0.24 | Not allowed | -17592.704 | ||
| M2a: positive selection | 0.341 | p0 = 0.76, p1 = 0.05, p2 = 0.19 | None | -17592.704 | M2a vs. M1a [2] | 0 |
| M7: beta | 0.166 | p = 0.61, q = 2.76 | Not allowed | -17168.752 | ||
| M8: beta & ω>1 | 0.166 | p0 = 1.00, p1 = 0.00 | None | -17168.752 | M8 vs. M7 [2] | 0 |
| Branch-specific model: ancestral | ||||||
| Nested Model pairs | dN/dSa | Parameters estimatesb | PSSc,d | ℓ | Model comparison [Δdf] | 2ℓd |
| Model A1 | - | p0 = 0.68, p1 = 0.22, p2+ p3 = 0.10 | 16**, 26, 124*, 125**, 139, 151, 169 | -17582.792 | A1 vs M1a [2] | 19.82*** |
| Model A2 | - | p0 = 0.59, p1 = 0.19, p2+ p3 = 0.17 | N/A | -17586.128 | A1 vs A2 [1] | 6.67** |
| Model B | - | p0 = 0.41, p1 = 0.45, p2+ p3 = 0.14 | 4, 7, 16*, 26, 50, 124**, 125*, 127, 139, 169, 172, 173 | -17312.590 | B vs M3(k = 2) [2] | 13.55** |
| Branch-specific model: ancestral DAM clade | ||||||
| Nested Model pairs | dN/dSa | Parameters estimatesb | PSSc,d | ℓ | Model comparison [Δdf] | 2ℓd |
| Model A1 | - | p0 = 0.67, p1 = 0.22, p2+ p3 = 0.11 | N/A | -17592.339 | A1 vs M1a [2] | 0.73 |
| Model A2 | - | p0 = 0.67, p1 = 0.22, p2+ p3 = 0.11 | N/A | -17592.339 | A1 vs A2 [1] | 0 |
| Model B | - | p0 = 0.39, p1 = 0.44, p2+ p3 = 0.17 | N/A | -17318.615 | B vs M3(k = 2) [2] | 1.5 |
aAverage over all sites.
bpi: proportion of sites. p, q: parameters of the β distribution.
cPSS: Number of positively selected sites. Naïve empirical Bayes was used in M3 and Bayes empirical Bayes in M2a and M8.
dAsterisks indicate significance: * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001.
Evolutionary analysis of the MIKCC-type MADS-box genes of peach
| Site model: One ω ratio for each branch | ||||||
| Nested Model pairs | dN/dSa | Parameters estimatesb | PSSc,d | ℓ | Model comparison [Δdf] | 2ℓd |
| M: free ratio | several | - | - | -2519.205 | Model1 vs. M0 [11] | 11.63 |
| Site model: One ω ratio for all branches | ||||||
| Nested Model pairs | dN/dSa | Parameters estimatesb | PSSc,d | ℓ | Model comparison [Δdf] | 2ℓd |
| M0: one ratio | 0.434 | ω = 0.434 | -2525.019 | |||
| M3: discrete (k = 3) | 0.611 | p0 = 0.51, p1 = 0.46, p2 = 0.03 | 62, 79, 185, 218, 228, 239* | -2486.684 | M3 vs. M0 [4] | 76.67*** |
| M1a: nearlyneutral | 0.509 | p0 = 0.55, p1 = 0.45 | Not allowed | -2489.546 | ||
| M2a: positive selection | 0.632 | p0 = 0.54, p1 = 0.43, p2 = 0.03 | 62, 79, 185, 218, 228, 239 | -2486.782 | M2a vs. M1a [2] | 5.53 |
| M7: beta | 0.476 | p = 0.36, q = 0.40 | Not allowed | -2491.716 | ||
| M8: beta & ω > 1 | 0.593 | p0 = 0.96, p1 = 0.04 | 62, 79, 81, 83, 185, 218, 228, 239* | -2487.434 | M8 vs. M7 [2] | 8.56* |
aAverage over all sites.
bpi: proportion of sites. p, q: parameters of the β distribution.
cPSS: positively selected sites. Naïve empirical Bayes was used in M3 and Bayes empirical Bayes in M2a and M8.
dAsterisks indicate significance: * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001.
Figure 5Ancestral reconstruction in the region of the positively selected site 239 in PpDAM genes. Sequence corresponds with the rectangular region of Figure 2. Ancestral names of sequences correspond to internal nodes of Figure 4. The posterior probability for the reconstructed amino acid at an internal node is indicated. Non-variable sites are not highlighted.