| Literature DB >> 26334527 |
Li Lin1,2, Liang Tang3, Yun-Jun Bai4,5, Zhi-Yao Tang6, Wei Wang7, Zhi-Duan Chen8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The rice genus (Oryza) contains many wild genetic resources that are vital to the well-being of humans. However, little is known about the process by which the genus diversified or the factors that drove its speciation. Here, we integrated the phylogenetic, molecular dating and biogeographic methods to investigate the spatial-temporal patterns of Oryza diversification, and used a series of model tests to examine whether intercontinental migrations and/or key innovations were associated with significant changes in diversification rates in the genus.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26334527 PMCID: PMC4559288 DOI: 10.1186/s12862-015-0459-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Fig. 1The Geographic distribution of Oryza wild species
Fig. 2Space and tempo in the evolutionary history of Oryza. a Combined chronogram and biogeographical analyses of Oryza. The MCC tree was generated from the dating analysis of Oryza and other Oryzeae in scenario #1. Grey bars represent 95 % highest posterior density intervals for each node. Node charts show the relative probabilities of alternative ancestral distributions obtained by Statistical Dispersal-Vicariance Analysis (S-DIVA) optimisations over the 1000 Bayesian trees (white > red > blue); areas (frequencies < 0.1) are shown in black. Numbers in red near branches indicate the node number, as noted in Table 1. Genome types are shown at the right. b Lineage-through-time (LTT) plots for Oryza, excluding outgroups. The grey lines represent the results of 1000 trees randomly selected from the BEAST analysis. The black line shows the MCC tree. c Maximum-likelihood diversification rate estimates for Oryza. The solid line represents the best model and the dashed line represents the other models
Results for age estimates and biogeographical optimizations with Tropical Asia (A), Temperate Aisa (B), Australia (C) Americas (D) and Africa (E) for the nodes of interest in the Oryzeae
| Analysis | Divergence-time estimate (Ma) | Biogeographical inference | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stem age of Oryzeae | Constrained (66) | Constrained (34.5) | S-DIVA | Lagrange | ||
| Results for discussed nodes | Age (95 % HPD) | Age (95 % HPD) | Ancestral areas | Rel. Prob. | split | Rel. prob. |
| 1 – Crown group of Oryzeae | 39.11 (34.23–44.89) | 20.34 (17.37–23.35) | – | – | – | – |
| 2 – Crown group of | 20.40 (18.11–24.83) | 11.10 (9.36–12.98) | A | 1.0 | A|A | 0.50 |
| 3 – A-/B-/C-genomes vs. E-genome | 10.15 (8.33–12.10) | 5.27 (4.31–6.35) | AC | 1.0 | C|A | 0.18 |
| 4 – A-/B-genomes vs. C-genome | 7.05 (5.80–8.52) | 3.68 (2.96–4.44) | A | 1.0 | A|A | 0.25 |
| 5 – Migration into South America | 2.17 (1.49–2.95) | 1.12 (0.79–1.51) | AE | 1.0 | AD|E | 0.34 |
| 6 – Migration into Africa | 0.81 (0.43–1.24) | 0.42 (0.23–0.65) | AD | 1.0 | D|BA | 0.63 |
| 7 – A-genome vs. B-genome | 6.03 (4.86–7.30) | 3.15 (2.51–3.86) | A | 0.84 | A|A | 0.46 |
| AD | 0.14 | |||||
| 8 – Migration into Africa | 0.86 (0.49–1.29) | 0.46 (0.26–0.70) | AD | 1.0 | D|A | 0.96 |
| 9 – Crown group of A-genome | 1.91 (1.26–3.14) | 1.03 (0.67–1.68) | AE | 0.34 | A|CDE | 0.40 |
| AD | 0.33 | |||||
| AC | 0.29 | |||||
| 10 – Migration into Africa | 0.80 (0.21–1.51) | 0.43 (0.09–0.86) | AD | 1.0 | D|A | 0.97 |
| 11 – Migration into Africa, | 1.14 (0.27–1.91) | 0.62 (0.15–1.06) | DE | 0.41 | E|CD | 0.71 |
| Australia, and Americas | CE | 0.40 | ||||
| CD | 0.18 | |||||
| 12 – Migration into Australia | 2.71 (1.85–3.74) | 1.37 (0.93–1.91) | AC | 1.0 | C|A | 0.90 |
| 13 – Migration into Africa | 15.02 (12.15–17.70) | 7.76 (6.31–9.29) | AD | 1.0 | A|A | 0.50 |
The node numbers correspond to those in Fig. 1. HPD = highest posterior density intervals; Rel. prob. = relative probability
Fig. 3Ancestral state reconstruction in Oryza in Mesquite. a Habitat. b Life history
Model fit of trait dependent diversification: habitat and life history
| Model constraints | λ | lnLik | AIC | ΔAIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario #1 | ||||
| Habitat (close/open) | ||||
| μ0 = μ1 = 0 | λ0 = 0.090, λ1 = 0.311 | −81.34 | 170.68 | −2.62 |
| λ0 = λ1, μ0 = μ1 = 0 | λ0 = 0.180 | −83.65 | 173.30 | |
| μ0 = μ1 = 0, | λ0 = 0.095, λ1 = 0.272 | −80.82 | 169.62 | −1.71 |
| λ0 = λ1, μ0 = μ1 = 0, | λ0 = 0.180 | −82.76 | 171.33 | |
| Life history (perennial/annual) | ||||
| μ0 = μ1 = 0 | λ0 = 0.124, λ1 = 0.460 | −80.12 | 169.60 | −2.47 |
| λ0 = λ1, μ0 = μ1 = 0 | λ0 = 0.180 | −82.11 | 172.07 | |
| μ0 = μ1 = 0, | λ0 = 0.144, λ1 = 0.522 | −85.58 | 178.98 | 2.17 |
| λ0 = λ1, μ0 = μ1 = 0, | λ0 = 0.180 | −85.46 | 176.81 | |
| Scenario #2 | ||||
| Habitat (close/open) | ||||
| μ0 = μ1 = 0 | λ0 = 0.176, λ1 = 0.591 | −66.23 | 138.12 | −2.53 |
| λ0 = λ1, μ0 = μ1 = 0 | λ0 = 0.346 | −68.52 | 140.65 | |
| μ0 = μ1 = 0, | λ0 = 0.185, λ1 = 0.521 | −66.69 | 137.00 | −1.68 |
| λ0 = λ1, μ0 = μ1 = 0, | λ0 = 0.346 | −68.54 | 138.68 | |
| Life history (perennial/annual) | ||||
| μ0 = μ1 = 0 | λ0 = 0.247, λ1 = 0.843 | −65.85 | 137.50 | −1.84 |
| λ0 = λ1, μ0 = μ1 = 0 | λ0 = 0.346 | −67.81 | 139.34 | |
| μ0 = μ1 = 0, | λ0 = 0.277, λ1 = 0.965 | −71.30 | 146.26 | 2.32 |
| λ0 = λ1, μ0 = μ1 = 0, | λ0 = 0.346 | −71.14 | 143.94 | |
Four models with different constraint settings on speciation rates (λ), extinction rates (μ), and state-transition rates (q) were implied. Subscript numbers 0 and 1 refer to close/open habitats and perennial/annual life histories, respectively. Constraint λ0 = λ1 assumes that the speciation rates of lineages with trait 0 and trait 1 are equal, μ0 = μ1 = 0 assumes that the extinction rates of lineages with trait 0 and trait 1 are zero, and q01 = q10 assumes that transition rates from trait 0 to trait 1 and from trait 1 to trait 0 are equal
Fig. 4Posterior probability distributions of speciation rates associated with evolutionary changes of habitat (close/open) and life history (perennial/annual) based on Bayesian BiSSE analyses using the model with lowest AIC score under scenario #1 and #2 (see Table 1). The shaded areas and bars indicate the 95 % confidence intervals. a Habitat under scenario #1. b Habitat under scenario #2. c Life history under scenario #1. d Life history under scenario #2