| Literature DB >> 21062446 |
Jia-Xing Yue1, Jinpeng Li, Dan Wang, Hitoshi Araki, Dacheng Tian, Sihai Yang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rates of molecular evolution vary widely among species. While significant deviations from molecular clock have been found in many taxa, effects of life histories on molecular evolution are not fully understood. In plants, annual/perennial life history traits have long been suspected to influence the evolutionary rates at the molecular level. To date, however, the number of genes investigated on this subject is limited and the conclusions are mixed. To evaluate the possible heterogeneity in evolutionary rates between annual and perennial plants at the genomic level, we investigated 85 nuclear housekeeping genes, 10 non-housekeeping families, and 34 chloroplast genes using the genomic data from model plants including Arabidopsis thaliana and Medicago truncatula for annuals and grape (Vitis vinifera) and popular (Populus trichocarpa) for perennials.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21062446 PMCID: PMC3095324 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2229-10-242
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Figure 1Phylogenetic relationship of 5 plant species used in our study. Evolutionary history of five studied species was inferred based on the nucleotide sequences of 85 nuclear genes (A) and 34 chloroplast genes (B). Neighbor-Joining method was used to reconstruct the phylogenetically consensus trees. The percentage of the bootstrap supporting the cluster is shown next to the branches (out of 1000 replicates). The trees were drawn using MEGA v4.0.
Sign-test for the annual-perennial comparison of evolutionary rates, estimated by the ML method
| Nuclear Housekeeping Genes (85 Loci) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 82.4% | 5.86E-10 | 74.1% | 4.91E-06 | 78.8% | 4.21E-08 | |
| 81.2% | 2.62E-09 | 68.2% | 5.08E-03 | 82.4% | 5.86E-10 | |
| 81.2% | 2.62E-09 | 74.1% | 4.91E-06 | 78.8% | 4.21E-08 | |
| 76.5% | 5.15E-07 | 62.4% | 0.015 | 74.1% | 4.91E-06 | |
| 77.5% | 2.52E-09 | 59.5% | 0.029 | 78.4% | 7.09E-10 | |
| 73.9% | 2.45E-07 | 56.8% | 0.092 | 79.3% | 1.90E-10 | |
| 80.2% | 4.82E-11 | 80.2% | 4.82E-11 | 76.6% | 8.49E-09 | |
| 77.5% | 2.52E-09 | 71.2% | 4.73E-06 | 74.8% | 8.38E-08 | |
| 88.2% | 3.08E-06 | 73.5% | 4.52E-03 | 91.2% | 3.83E-07 | |
| 71.4% | 0.012 | 64.7% | 0.061 | 76.5% | 1.47E-03 | |
| 97.1% | 2.04E-09 | 91.2% | 3.83E-07 | 97.1% | 2.04E-09 | |
| 97.1% | 2.04E-09 | 85.3% | 1.93E-05 | 94.1% | 3.47E-08 | |
The proportion of genes showing higher evolutionary rate in annuals than in perennials and the P-value of sign-test in three different measures of the evolutionary rate (d, dN and dS) are listed in the table.
P-values by the paired t-test for the heterogeneity of evolutionary rates
| Nuclear Housekeeping Genes (85 Loci) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.09E-05 | 6.72E-04 | 1.66E-06 | 0.011 | 3.29E-06 | 1.37E-04 | |
| 1.16E-06 | 7.74E-04 | 3.60E-08 | 3.07E-03 | 2.26E-05 | 1.59E-03 | |
| 6.12E-07 | 6.24E-05 | 1.22E-03 | 0.045 | 6.58E-06 | 6.66E-05 | |
| 5.32E-09 | 7.45E-06 | 1.07E-07 | 1.55E-05 | 2.79E-07 | 1.12E-03 | |
| 8.49E-08 | 8.09E-08 | 5.77E-03 | 0.243 | 1.48E-07 | 4.79E-04 | |
| 1.22E-12 | 3.98E-10 | 2.00E-04 | 4.66E-03 | 2.96E-12 | 2.12E-09 | |
The P-values of paired t-test in all 4 annual-perennial cross-comparisons suggest higher evolutionary rates in annuals than in perennials. The estimation of evolutionary rate is based on the ML method.
Figure 2Scatter plots of evolutionary rate in annuals against that in perennials for nuclear housekeeping genes estimated by the ML method. Cases in all 4 annual-perennial cross-comparison are shown. The dotted line is the diagonal line with a slope equal to 1, and the red line is the regression line.
Correlations between annual-perennial evolutionary rates
| Nuclear Housekeeping Genes (85 Loci) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.023 | 0.518 | 0.280 | 0.728 | 0.007 | 0.441 | |
| 0.008 | 0.597 | 0.375 | 0.855 | 0.005 | 0.493 | |
| 0.251 | 0.725 | 0.350 | 0.707 | 0.261 | 0.703 | |
| 0.404 | 0.852 | 0.365 | 0.825 | 0.501 | 0.849 | |
| 0.075 | 0.588 | 0.548 | 0.842 | 0.008 | 0.505 | |
| 0.108 | 0.657 | 0.593 | 0.892 | 0.051 | 0.572 | |
| 0.458 | 0.732 | 0.442 | 0.697 | 0.366 | 0.738 | |
| 0.572 | 0.838 | 0.442 | 0.743 | 0.449 | 0.859 | |
| 0.482 | 0.546 | 0.593 | 0.668 | 0.254 | 0.474 | |
| 0.497 | 0.730 | 0.721 | 0.862 | 0.196 | 0.632 | |
| 0.358 | 0.451 | 0.297 | 0.541 | 0.143 | 0.427 | |
| 0.531 | 0.627 | 0.398 | 0.681 | 0.292 | 0.604 | |
The square of correlation coefficient (R2) and the slope of regression line of evolutionary rate in annuals against that in perennials are listed in the table.
Figure 3Scatter plots of evolutionary rate in annuals against that in perennials for non-housekeeping gene families estimated by the ML method. Cases in all 4 annual-perennial cross-comparison are shown. The dotted line is the diagonal line with a slope equal to 1, and the red line is the regression line.
Figure 4Scatter plots of evolutionary rate in annuals against that in perennials for chloroplast genes estimated by the ML method. Cases in all 4 annual-perennial cross-comparison are shown. The dotted line is the diagonal line with a slope equal to 1, and the red line is the regression line.