| Literature DB >> 21188459 |
Benny Lemaire1, Suzy Huysmans, Erik Smets, Vincent Merckx.
Abstract
Rate variation in genes from all three genomes has been observed frequently in plant lineages with a parasitic and mycoheterotrophic mode of life. While the loss of photosynthetic ability leads to a relaxation of evolutionary constraints in genes involved in the photosynthetic apparatus, it remains to be determined how prevalent increased substitution rates are in nuclear DNA of non-photosynthetic angiosperms. In this study we infer rates of molecular evolution of 18S rDNA of all parasitic and mycoheterotorphic plant families (except Lauraceae and Polygalaceae) using relative rate tests. In several holoparasitic and mycoheterotrophic plant lineages extremely high substitution rates are observed compared to other photosynthetic angiosperms. The position and frequency of these substitutions have been identified to understand the mutation dynamics of 18S rRNA in achlorophyllous plants. Despite the presence of significantly elevated substitution rates, very few mutations occur in major functional and structural regions of the small ribosomal molecule, providing evidence that the efficiency of the translational apparatus in non-photosynthetic plants has not been affected.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21188459 PMCID: PMC3159761 DOI: 10.1007/s10265-010-0395-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Plant Res ISSN: 0918-9440 Impact factor: 2.629
List of mycoheterotrophic/parasitic taxa and outgroups investigated in this study
| Mycoheterotroph/parasite | BRT (constrained) | BRT (unconstrained) | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outgroup | |||
| Hemiparasites | |||
|
| |||
|
|
|
| McNeal et al. ( |
|
| 0.164/0.202/0.252 | 0.167/0.216/0.260 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.117/0.155/0.208 | 0.137/0.173/0.221 | Simpson et al. ( |
|
| 0.096/0.137/0.176 | 0.118/0.152/0.201 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.128/0.164/0.206 | 0.120/0.157/0.192 | Olmstead et al. ( |
|
| 0.143/0.184/0.231 | 0.142/0.179/0.219 | |
|
| 0.123/0.154/0.194 | 0.115/0.151/0.189 | |
|
| 0.139/0.171/0.214 | 0.128/0.165/0.202 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.114/0.152/0.195 | 0.106/0.139/0.181 | Der and Nickrent ( |
|
| 0.102/0.139/0.184 | 0.094/0.130/0.174 | Malécot and Nickrent ( |
|
| |||
|
| 0.193/0.242/0.308 | 0.194/0.245/0.298 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.092/0.124/0.161 | 0.081/0.116/0.150 | |
|
| 0.156/0.207/0.261 | 0.130/0.172/0.216 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.179/0.227/0.293 | 0.161/0.205/0.267 | |
|
| 0.170/0.215/0.269 | 0.149/0.196/0.250 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.170/0.208/0.270 | 0.166/0.210/0.262 | |
|
| 0.126/0.166/0.231 | 0.138/0.175/0.221 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.158/0.197/0.242 | 0.133/0.184/0.229 | |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.131/0.167/0.212 | 0.112/0.150/0.189 | |
|
| 0.127/0.166/0.206 | 0.132/0.169/0.222 | |
|
| 0.142/0.182/0.219 | 0.144/0.186/0.238 | |
| Holoparasites | |||
|
| |||
|
| 0.189/0.245/0.296 | 0.189/0.235/0.282 | Nickrent et al. ( |
|
| 0.162/0.213/0.272 | 0.158/0.202/0.246 | |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| Stevens ( |
|
| 0.131/0.167/0.212 | 0.112/0.150/0.189 | |
|
| 0.127/0.166/0.206 | 0.132/0.169/0.222 | |
|
| 0.142/0.182/0.219 | 0.144/0.186/0.238 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.189/0.236/0.285 | 0.182/0.226/0.285 | Nickrent et al. ( |
|
| 0.131/0.167/0.212 | 0.112/0.150/0.189 | |
|
| 0.127/0.166/0.206 | 0.132/0.169/0.222 | |
|
| 0.142/0.182/0.219 | 0.144/0.186/0.238 | |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| Nickrent ( |
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.136/0.172/0.217 | 0.147/0.187/0.233 | |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| Davis et al. ( |
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.114/0.156/0.203 | 0.107/0.145/0.182 | |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| Nickrent et al. ( |
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.074/0.099/0.130 | 0.103/0.164/0.215 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.242/0.290/0.346 | 0.236/0.276/0.320 | Olmstead and Ferguson ( |
|
| 0.173/0.215/0.270 | 0.162/0.204/0.243 | |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| Davis et al. ( |
|
| 0.143/0.183/0.225 | 0.133/0.170/0.207 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.126/0.169/0.214 | 0.127/0.165/0.199 | Olmstead et al. ( |
|
| 0.140/0.178/0.221 | 0.132/0.173/0.210 | |
|
| 0.135/0.173/0.214 | 0.130/0.168/0.204 | |
|
| 0.155/0.195/0.241 | 0.158/0.195/0.238 | |
|
| 0.154/0.194/0.242 | 0.146/0.190/0.229 | |
|
| 0.178/0.220/0.276 | 0.171/0.217/0.256 | |
|
| 0.123/0.154/0.194 | 0.115/0.151/0.189 | |
|
| 0.139/0.171/0.214 | 0.128/0.165/0.202 | |
| Mycoheterotrophs | Family | ||
|
| |||
|
| 0.221/0.279/0.349 | 0.155/0.212/0.304 | Merckx et al. ( |
|
| 0.263/0.311/0.358 | 0.188/0.238/0.288 | |
|
| 0.198/0.254/0.303 | 0.136/0.187/0.249 | |
|
| 0.147/0.188/0.246 | 0.083/0.122/0.160 | |
|
| 0.201/0.254/0.326 | 0.138/0.192/0.256 | |
|
| 0.186/0.227/0.298 | 0.105/0.157/0.210 | |
|
| 0.178/0.232/0.286 | 0.115/0.159/0.215 | |
|
| 0.163/0.215/0.281 | 0.099/0.144/0.207 | |
|
| 0.141/0.187/0.243 | 0.075/0.118/0.166 | |
|
| 0.329/0.395/0.479 | 0.269/0.325/0.377 | |
|
| 0.139/0.189/0.239 | 0.083/0.123/0.169 | |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| Fay et al. ( |
|
| 0.102/0.140/0.183 | 0.037/0.075/0.107 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.149/0.199/0.256 | 0.147/0.187/0.238 | Cullings ( |
|
| 0.191/0.242/0.293 | 0.151/0.198/0.248 | |
|
| 0.165/0.210/0.252 | 0.184/0.233/0.283 | |
|
| 0.157/0.200/0.241 | 0.156/0.191/0.232 | |
|
| 0.151/0.196/0.237 | 0.139/0.185/0.231 | |
|
| 0.104/0.142/0.182 | 0.097/0.135/0.174 | |
|
| 0.120/0.159/0.197 | 0.114/0.150/0.191 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.251/0.294/0.352 | 0.229/0.269/0.315 | Yuan et al. ( |
|
| 0.195/0.241/0.303 | 0.177/0.217/0.255 | |
|
| 0.241/0.294/0.361 | 0.218/0.268/0.320 | |
|
| 0.275/0.327/0.387 | 0.257/0.303/0.352 | |
|
| 0.255/0.299/0.366 | 0.227/0.273/0.319 | |
|
| 0.170/0.221/0.284 | 0.152/0.198/0.238 | |
|
| 0.187/0.244/0.308 | 0.174/0.219/0.263 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.095/0.134/0.175 | 0.067/0.095/0.129 | Reeves et al. ( |
|
| 0.122/0.157/0.199 | 0.096/0.123/0.155 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.165/0.205/0.246 | 0.112/0.171/0.221 | Freudenstein et al. ( |
|
| 0.161/0.200/0.246 | 0.108/0.167/0.217 | Molvray et al. ( |
|
| 0.288/0.335/0.385 | 0.226/0.297/0.361 | |
|
| 0.277/0.329/0.378 | 0.231/0.293/0.367 | |
|
| 0.265/0.305/0.361 | 0.216/0.270/0.335 | |
|
| 0.273/0.313/0.366 | 0.219/0.279/0.346 | |
|
| 0.201/0.245/0.293 | 0.167/0.217/0.272 | |
|
| 0.196/0.236/0.285 | 0.154/0.205/0.262 | |
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.223/0.265/0.310 | 0.175/0.225/0.286 | |
|
| 0.175/0.222/0.265 | 0.137/0.189/0.239 | |
|
| 0.237/0.274/0.324 | 0.177/0.236/0.295 | |
|
| |||
|
| 0.083/0.131/0.204 | 0.052/0.112/0.162 | Cameron et al. ( |
|
| 0.073/0.117/0.180 | 0.056/0.102/0.152 | |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| Merckx et al. ( |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.148/0.195/0.248 | 0.095/0.135/0.185 | |
|
| 0.139/0.189/0.239 | 0.083/0.123/0.169 | |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| Stevens ( |
|
| 0.133/0.185/0.237 | 0.077/0.128/0.177 | |
|
| 0.131/0.188/0.246 | 0.076/0.132/0.175 | |
|
| 0.103/0.156/0.206 | 0.075/0.119/0.164 | |
95% confidence intervals and median values of constrained and non-constrained Bayesian relative rates test (BRT) are indicated between “/”. Mycoheterotrophic/parasitic taxa are indicated in bold. Lineages with significant elevated substitution rates are underlined. Choice of outgroups were based on previous phylogenetic studies. Newly obtained 18S rDNA sequences for this study are indicated with an asterisk
Fig. 1a, b The majority-rule consensus phylogram of the Bayesian analysis of the 18S rDNA data under topology constraints. The implemented constrains are indicated with asterisks. Branches in bold with a circle, a square, a diamond and an ellipse are, respectively, mycoheterotrophic, holoparasitic, hemiparasitic and facultative hemiparasitic lineages. c, d The Bayesian relative rates test shows the relative branch lengths of all ingroup taxa using Amborella as most recent common ancestor (MRCA). The squares indicate the mean branch lengths. The triangles delimit the 95% confidence intervals
Values of the relative rate test for comparing molecular evolutionary rates between parasitic/mycoheterotrophic lineages (Lineage 1) and autotrophic relatives (Lineage 2)
| Family | Lineage 1 | Lineage 2 | K1 | K2 | K1–K2 | K1/K2 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apodanthaceae |
|
| 0.055 | 0.043 | 0.012 | 1.3 |
|
| Burmanniaceae |
|
| 0.006 | 0.068 | −0.062 | 0.1 | 3.0 × 10−1 |
|
|
| 0.059 | 0.068 | −0.009 | 0.9 | 4.5 × 10−2 | |
|
|
| 0.033 | 0.053 | −0.020 | 0.6 | 8.0 × 10−5 | |
|
|
| 0.063 | 0.093 | −0.029 | 0.7 | 7.7 × 10−5 | |
|
|
| 0.044 | 0.068 | −0.024 | 0.6 | 1.0 × 10−7 | |
| Convolvulaceae |
|
| 0.077 | 0.044 | 0.033 | 1.8 |
|
| Corsiaceae |
|
| 0.105 | 0.020 | 0.084 | 5.2 |
|
| Cynomoriaceae |
|
| 0.053 | 0.039 | 0.014 | 1.4 |
|
| Cytinaceae |
|
| 0.072 | 0.041 | 0.031 | 1.8 |
|
| Ericaceae | Ericaceae clade |
| 0.054 | 0.053 | 0.001 | 1.0 | 7.4 × 10−1 |
| Euphorbiaceae |
|
| 0.150 | 0.035 | 0.115 | 4.3 |
|
| Gentianaceae |
|
| 0.064 | 0.050 | 0.014 | 1.3 |
|
| Gentianaceae |
|
| 0.051 | 0.050 | 0.001 | 1.0 | 5.2 × 10−1 |
| Gentianaceae |
|
| 0.063 | 0.052 | 0.011 | 1.2 |
|
| Gentianaceae |
|
| 0.049 | 0.050 | −0.001 | 1.0 | 8.3 × 10−1 |
| Hydnoraceae |
|
| 0.086 | 0.039 | 0.047 | 2.2 |
|
| Iridaceae |
|
| 0.034 | 0.035 | −0.001 | 1.0 | 7.6 × 10−1 |
| Krameriaceae |
|
| 0.039 | 0.039 | 0.000 | 1.0 | 9.9 × 10−1 |
| Lennoaceae |
|
| 0.060 | 0.044 | 0.016 | 1.4 |
|
| Mitrastemonaceae |
|
| 0.086 | 0.043 | 0.044 | 2.0 |
|
| Orchidaceae |
|
| 0.048 | 0.045 | 0.003 | 1.1 | 1.2 × 10−1 |
| Orchidaceae |
|
| 0.060 | 0.062 | −0.002 | 1.0 | 6.0 × 10−1 |
| Orchidaceae |
|
| 0.050 | 0.054 | −0.004 | 0.9 | 2.7 × 10−1 |
| Orchidaceae |
|
| 0.060 | 0.055 | 0.006 | 1.1 | 1.2 × 10−1 |
| Orchidaceae |
|
| 0.088 | 0.050 | 0.038 | 1.8 |
|
| Orchidaceae |
|
| 0.044 | 0.054 | −0.010 | 0.1 | 7.4 × 10−3 |
| Orobanchaceae | Orobanchaceae clade |
| 0.044 | 0.425 | 0.002 | 0.1 | 5.6 × 10−1 |
| Petrosaviaceae |
|
| 0.035 | 0.031 | 0.004 | 1.1 | 2.5 × 10−1 |
| Santalales | Santalales clade |
| 0.051 | 0.039 | 0.012 | 1.3 |
|
| Thismiaceae |
|
| 0.113 | 0.041 | 0.072 | 2.8 |
|
| Thismiaceae |
|
| 0.082 | 0.042 | 0.040 | 1.9 |
|
| Triuridacaee |
|
| 0.056 | 0.037 | 0.019 | 1.5 |
|
P values of lineages with significant increased substitution rates are indicated in bold
K1 mean divergence between lineage 1 and the most recent common ancestor of lineages 1 and 2; K2 mean divergence between lineage 2 and the most recent common ancestor of lineages 1 and 2; K1/K2 rate ratio
aSignificance of the P values <0.05
bLineages with significant increased substitution rates which are not observed in the Bayesian relative rates test
Fig. 2Histograms showing the pattern of nucleotide substitutions in 18S rDNA across angiosperm taxa. The histogram describes for each nucleotide site the amount of parsimony steps or character substitutions (y-axis; a, b loops above, stems below; c heterotrophic minus autotrophic). Helix numbering according to Wuyts et al. (2000) is shown at the top. The major functional and structural sites according to Caetano-Anollés (2002) are indicated at the bottom. a Pattern of nucleotide substitution of 54 autotrophic taxa. b Pattern of nucleotide substitution of 37 mycoheterotrophic and 17 holoparasitic taxa. c Difference between mycoheterotrophic/parasitic and autotrophic values of character substitutions per nucleotide site. Light gray and dark gray shading displays the different helix structures and functional regions, respectively