BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sorghum is an essential grain crop whose evolutionary placement within the Andropogoneae has been the subject of scrutiny for decades. Early studies using cytogenetic and morphological data point to a poly- or paraphyletic origin of the genus; however, acceptance of poly- or paraphyly has been met with resistance. This study aimed to address the species relationships within Sorghum, in addition to the placement of Sorghum within the tribe, using a phylogenetic approach and employing broad taxon sampling. METHODS: From 16 diverse Sorghum species, eight low-copy nuclear loci were sequenced that are known to play a role in morphological diversity and have been previously used to study evolutionary relationships in grasses. Further, the data for four of these loci were combined with those from 57 members of the Andropogoneae in order to determine the placement of Sorghum within the tribe. Both maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses were performed on multilocus concatenated data matrices. KEY RESULTS: The Sorghum-specific topology provides strong support for two major lineages, in alignment with earlier studies employing chloroplast and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) markers. Clade I is composed of the Eu-, Chaeto- and Heterosorghum, while clade II contains the Stipo- and Parasorghum. When combined with data from the Andropogoneae, Clade II resolves as sister to a clade containing Miscanthus and Saccharum with high posterior probability and bootstrap support, and to the exclusion of Clade I. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide compelling evidence for a two-lineage polyphyletic ancestry of Sorghum within the larger Andropogoneae, i.e. the derivation of the two major Sorghum clades from a unique common ancestor. Rejection of monophyly in previous molecular studies is probably due to limited taxon sampling outside of the genus. The clade consisting of Para- and Stiposorghum resolves as sister to Miscanthus and Saccharum with strong node support.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sorghum is an essential grain crop whose evolutionary placement within the Andropogoneae has been the subject of scrutiny for decades. Early studies using cytogenetic and morphological data point to a poly- or paraphyletic origin of the genus; however, acceptance of poly- or paraphyly has been met with resistance. This study aimed to address the species relationships within Sorghum, in addition to the placement of Sorghum within the tribe, using a phylogenetic approach and employing broad taxon sampling. METHODS: From 16 diverse Sorghum species, eight low-copy nuclear loci were sequenced that are known to play a role in morphological diversity and have been previously used to study evolutionary relationships in grasses. Further, the data for four of these loci were combined with those from 57 members of the Andropogoneae in order to determine the placement of Sorghum within the tribe. Both maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses were performed on multilocus concatenated data matrices. KEY RESULTS: The Sorghum-specific topology provides strong support for two major lineages, in alignment with earlier studies employing chloroplast and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) markers. Clade I is composed of the Eu-, Chaeto- and Heterosorghum, while clade II contains the Stipo- and Parasorghum. When combined with data from the Andropogoneae, Clade II resolves as sister to a clade containing Miscanthus and Saccharum with high posterior probability and bootstrap support, and to the exclusion of Clade I. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide compelling evidence for a two-lineage polyphyletic ancestry of Sorghum within the larger Andropogoneae, i.e. the derivation of the two major Sorghum clades from a unique common ancestor. Rejection of monophyly in previous molecular studies is probably due to limited taxon sampling outside of the genus. The clade consisting of Para- and Stiposorghum resolves as sister to Miscanthus and Saccharum with strong node support.
Authors: Matt C Estep; Michael R McKain; Dilys Vela Diaz; Jinshun Zhong; John G Hodge; Trevor R Hodkinson; Daniel J Layton; Simon T Malcomber; Rémy Pasquet; Elizabeth A Kellogg Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-10-06 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Sally L Dillon; Frances M Shapter; Robert J Henry; Giovanni Cordeiro; Liz Izquierdo; L Slade Lee Journal: Ann Bot Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 4.357
Authors: Jeffery M Saarela; Sean V Burke; William P Wysocki; Matthew D Barrett; Lynn G Clark; Joseph M Craine; Paul M Peterson; Robert J Soreng; Maria S Vorontsova; Melvin R Duvall Journal: PeerJ Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Andrew H Paterson; WenQian Kong; Robyn M Johnston; Pheonah Nabukalu; Guohong Wu; William L Poehlman; Valorie H Goff; Krista Isaacs; Tae-Ho Lee; Hui Guo; Dong Zhang; Uzay U Sezen; Megan Kennedy; Diane Bauer; Frank A Feltus; Eva Weltzien; Henry Frederick Rattunde; Jacob N Barney; Kerrie Barry; T Stan Cox; Michael J Scanlon Journal: Front Genet Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Sandy J Snyman; Dennis M Komape; Hlobisile Khanyi; Johnnie van den Berg; Dirk Cilliers; Dyfed Lloyd Evans; Sandra Barnard; Stefan J Siebert Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2018-06-07