| Literature DB >> 25270575 |
Claude Lemieux1, Christian Otis, Monique Turmel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The green algae represent one of the most successful groups of photosynthetic eukaryotes, but compared to their land plant relatives, surprisingly little is known about their evolutionary history. This is in great part due to the difficulty of recognizing species diversity behind morphologically similar organisms. The Trebouxiophyceae is a species-rich class of the Chlorophyta that includes symbionts (e.g. lichenized algae) as well as free-living green algae. Members of this group display remarkable ecological variation, occurring in aquatic, terrestrial and aeroterrestrial environments. Because a reliable backbone phylogeny is essential to understand the evolutionary history of the Trebouxiophyceae, we sought to identify the relationships among the major trebouxiophycean lineages that have been previously recognized in nuclear-encoded 18S rRNA phylogenies. To this end, we used a chloroplast phylogenomic approach.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25270575 PMCID: PMC4189289 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-014-0211-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Pedinophycean and trebouxiophycean taxa used in the chloroplast phylogenomic analyses
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
|
| UTEX LB 1350 | [GenBank:NC_016733] | |
|
| SAG 42.84 | [GenBank:KM462867]* | 454 |
|
| NIES 1824 | [GenBank:KM462870]* | 454 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
| SAG 1.80 | [GenBank:KM462886]* | Illumina |
|
| NC64A | [GenBank:NC_015359] | |
|
| C-27 | [GenBank:NC_001865] | |
|
| SAG 41.98 | [GenBank:KM462885]* | Sanger |
|
| SAG 12.88 | [GenBank:KM462888]* | 454 |
|
| SAG 211-11 g | [GenBank:NC_012978] | |
|
| |||
|
| SAG 807-1 | [GenBank:KM462884]* | Illumina |
|
| SAG 17.98 | [GenBank:KM462878]* | Sanger |
|
| NIES 2166 | [GenBank:NC_015084] | |
|
| CAUP H7103 | [GenBank:KM462887]* | 454 |
|
| SAG 18.84 | [GenBank:KM462879]* | Illumina |
|
| MX-AZ01 | [GenBank:NC_018569] | |
|
| |||
|
| SAG 22.88 | [GenBank:KM462883]* | Illumina |
|
| SAG 20.91 | [GenBank:KM462881]* | 454 |
|
| UTEX 1704 | [GenBank:KM462877]* | Illumina |
|
| |||
|
| SAG 28.85 | [GenBank:KM462882]* | 454 |
|
| UTEX 318 | [GenBank:KM462876]* | Sanger |
|
| |||
|
| SAG 83.80 | [GenBank:FJ968739] | |
|
| SAG 68.94 | [GenBank:KM462880]* | Sanger |
|
| |||
|
| SAG 38.88 | [GenBank:KM462865]* | Sanger |
|
| UTEX 339 | [GenBank:KM462868]* | 454 |
|
| SAG 7.90 | [GenBank:KM462866]* | Sanger |
|
| UTEX 176 | [GenBank:KM462864]* | Sanger |
|
| SAG 84.81 | [GenBank:KM462862]* | 454 |
|
| |||
|
| UTEX 1181 | [GenBank:KM462861]* | 454 |
|
| SAG 219-1D | [GenBank:EU123962-EU124002] | |
|
| |||
|
| SAG 2150 | [GenBank:KM462860]* | 454 |
|
| SAG 211-9b | [GenBank:KM462863]* | Illumina |
|
| |||
|
| UTEX 1176 | [GenBank:KM462875]* | Illumina |
|
| SAG 24.84 | [GenBank:KM462874]* | Illumina |
|
| UTEX 333 | [GenBank:NC_009681] | |
|
| SAG 2007 | [GenBank:KM462871]* | Sanger |
|
| CAUP D802 | [GenBank:KM462873]* | 454 |
|
| UTEX 975 | [GenBank:KM462869]* | Sanger |
|
| CAUP H7801 | [GenBank:KM462872]* | 454 |
aThe taxa originate from the culture collections of algae at the University of Goettingen (SAG, [43]), the University of Texas at Austin (UTEX, [44]), the Provasoli-Guillard National Center for Marine Algae and Microbiota (CCMP, [45]), the National Institute of Environmental Studies in Tsukuba (NIES, [46]), and Charles University in Prague (CAUP, [47]).
bThe GenBank accession number of the chloroplast genome is given for each taxon. The asterisks denote the genomes that were sequenced during the course of this study.
cSequencing methods are given only for the chloroplast genomes sequenced in this study.
dThis taxon, originally classified in the genus Chlorosarcina, was assigned to the new genus Pleurastrosarcina by Sluiman and Blommers [48].
Figure 1Phylogeny of 61 chlorophytes inferred using a data set of 15,549 positions assembled from 79 cpDNA-encoded proteins. The tree presented here is the best-scoring ML tree inferred under the GTR + Γ4 model. Support values are reported on the nodes: from top to bottom, or from left to right, are shown the posterior probability (PP) values for the PhyloBayes CATGTR + Γ4 analyses and the bootstrap support (BS) values for the RAxML GTR + Γ4, LG4X and gcpREV + Γ4 analyses. Black dots indicate that the corresponding branches received BS and PP values of 100% in all four analyses. Shaded areas identify the clades that are well supported in 18S rDNA phylogenies. The histograms on the left indicate the proportion of missing data for each taxon. The scale bar denotes the estimated number of amino acid substitutions per site.
Comparison of evolutionary models using cross validation and the chloroplast data set of 15,549 positions
|
|
|
|---|---|
| GTR + Γ4 vs gcpREV + Γ4 | 396.52 ± 48.58 |
| CATGTR + Γ4 vs gcpREV + Γ4 | 2545.78 ± 133.97 |
Figure 2Correspondence analysis of amino acid usage in the data set of 15,549 positions. The members of the Chlorellales and Pedinophyceae are found within the circled area.
Figure 3Influence of the Pedinophyceae on the placement of the Chlorellales. (A) Phylogeny of chlorophytes inferred under the GTR + Γ4 model using the amino acid data set of 15,549 positions after exclusion of the Pedinophyceae. The best-scoring RAxML tree is presented and support values are reported on the nodes, with black dots indicating 100% BS values. The scale bar denotes the estimated number of amino acid substitutions per site. (B) Confidence assessment of the three possible topologies (T1, T2 and T3) for the placement of the Chlorellales under the GTR + Γ4 model. The ΔlnL value indicates the difference in log likelihood relative to the best tree (T1). Local bootstrap probabilities were estimated by resampling of the estimated log-likelihood (RELL). pAU, P value for the approximately unbiased (AU) test [60] as implemented in CONSEL 0.20 [61].
Figure 4Phylogeny of 61 chlorophytes inferred using nucleotide data sets assembled from 79 cpDNA-encoded genes. The tree presented here is the best-scoring ML tree inferred using the degen1 data set under the GTR + Γ4 model. Support values are reported on the nodes: from top to bottom, or from left to right, are shown the BS values for the analyses of the degen1 and nt1 + 2 data sets. Black dots indicate that the corresponding branches received BS values of 100% in the two analyses. Shaded areas identify the trebouxiophycean lineages uncovered in this study. Open and filled squares denote aquatic and terrestrial/aeroterrestrial habitats, respectively; an open square containing a star indicates that the taxon is a symbiont. The scale bar denotes the estimated number of nucleotide substitutions per site.