| Literature DB >> 28579999 |
Jia Yang1, Lucía Vázquez2, Xiaodan Chen1, Huimin Li1, Hao Zhang1, Zhanlin Liu1, Guifang Zhao1.
Abstract
Chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) is frequently used for species demography, evolution, and species discrimination of plants. However, the lack of efficient and universal markers often brings particular challenges for genetic studies across different plant groups. In this study, chloroplast genomes from two closely related species (Quercus rubra and Castanea mollissima) in Fagaceae were compared to explore universal cpDNA markers for the Chinese oak species in Quercus subgenus Quercus, a diverse species group without sufficient molecular differentiation. With the comparison, nine and 14 plastid markers were selected as barcoding and phylogeographic candidates for the Chinese oaks. Five (psbA-trnH, matK-trnK, ycf3-trnS, matK, and ycf1) of the nine plastid candidate barcodes, with the addition of newly designed ITS and a single-copy nuclear gene (SAP), were then tested on 35 Chinese oak species employing four different barcoding approaches (genetic distance-, BLAST-, character-, and tree-based methods). The four methods showed different species identification powers with character-based method performing the best. Of the seven barcodes tested, a barcoding gap was absent in all of them across the Chinese oaks, while ITS and psbA-trnH provided the highest species resolution (30.30%) with the character- and BLAST-based methods, respectively. The six-marker combination (psbA-trnH + matK-trnK + matK + ycf1 + ITS + SAP) showed the best species resolution (84.85%) using the character-based method for barcoding the Chinese oaks. The barcoding results provided additional implications for taxonomy of the Chinese oaks in subg. Quercus, basically identifying three major infrageneric clades of the Chinese oaks (corresponding to Groups Quercus, Cerris, and Ilex) referenced to previous phylogenetic classification of Quercus. While the morphology-based allocations proposed for the Chinese oaks in subg. Quercus were challenged. A low variation rate of the chloroplast genome, and complex speciation patterns involving incomplete lineage sorting, interspecific hybridization and introgression, possibly have negative impacts on the species assignment and phylogeny of oak species.Entities:
Keywords: Quercus; hybridization; nuclear gene; phylogeny; plastid marker; species discrimination
Year: 2017 PMID: 28579999 PMCID: PMC5437370 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00816
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Taxon information of 35 Chinese oaks in .
| Quercus | 9 | Weining (Guizhou); Shaoxing (Zhejiang); Qinhuangdao (Hebei) | ||
| 9 | Jiujiang (Jiangxi); Anlong (Guizhou); Emeishan (Sichuan) | |||
| 9 | Foping (Shaanxi); Shenyang (Liaoning); Guangyuan (Sichuan) | |||
| 9 | Weining (Guizhou); Enshi (Hubei); Dongkou (Hunan) | |||
| 8 | Guangyuan (Sichuan); Dujiangyan (Sichuan); Bikou (Gansu) | |||
| 6 | Shangnan (Shaanxi); Jiujiang (Jiangxi) | |||
| 9 | Mengda (Qinghai); Huayin (Shaanxi); Zhashui (Shaanxi) | |||
| 9 | Xiyang (Shanxi); Changchun (Jilin); Yantai (Shandong) | |||
| 6 | Lijiang (Yunnan); Tianlin (Guangxi) | |||
| 3 | Yanyuan (Sichuan) | |||
| 3 | Huoshan (Anhui) | |||
| Aegilops | 9 | Funing (Yunnan); Longnan (Gansu); Qinhuangdao (Hebei) | ||
| 6 | Xixia (Henan); Yichang (Hubei) | |||
| 3 | Xinning (Hunan) | |||
| Heterobalanus | 15 | Hanzhong (Shaanxi); Jiulong (Sichuan); Shiyan (Hubei); Lijiang (Yunnan); Dali (Yunnan); Shangluo (Shaanxi); Xianju (Zhejiang); Hualien (Taiwan) | ||
| 8 | Maerkang (Sichuan); Mangkang (Tibet); Maoxian (Sichuan); Lijiang (Yunnan) | |||
| 3 | Maoxian (Sichuan) | |||
| 6 | Weining (Guizhou); Luding (Sichuan); Lijiang (Yunnan) | |||
| 4 | Bomi (Tibet); Muli (Sichuan) | |||
| 6 | Maerkang (Sichuan); Muli (Sichuan); Lijiang (Yunnan) | |||
| 4 | Yanyuan (Sichuan); Kangding (Sichuan) | |||
| 10 | Chayu (Tibet); Lijiang (Yunnan); Muli (Sichuan); Huize (Yunnan); Weining (Guizhou) | |||
| 8 | Maerkang (Sichuan); Deqin (Yunnan); Lijiang (Yunnan); Muli (Sichuan) | |||
| 3 | Linzhi (Tibet) | |||
| 3 | Maoxian (Sichuan) | |||
| Engleriana | 3 | Tongren (Guizhou) | ||
| 3 | Muli (Sichuan) | |||
| 6 | Shaowu (Fujian); Chongqing | |||
| 3 | Miyi (Sichuan) | |||
| 6 | Xinning (Hunan); Shangnan (Shaanxi) | |||
| 3 | Tongmai (Tibet) | |||
| 4 | Taroko (Taiwan) | |||
| Echinolepides | 6 | Longlin (Guangxi); Enshi (Hubei) | ||
| 6 | Lueyang (Shaanxi); Shaowu (Fujian) | |||
| 9 | Linfen (Shanxi); Xian (Shaanxi); Lushi (Henan) |
Comparison of major features of the two chloroplast genomes .
| Total length (bp) | 161,304 | 160,799 |
| LSC length (bp) | 91,121 | 90,432 |
| SSC length (bp) | 20,150 | 18,995 |
| IR length (bp) | 25,051 | 25,686 |
| GC content (%) | 36.79 | 36.80 |
| Number of gene | 138 | 127 |
| Number of repetitive structure | 12 | 8 |
Information of plastid primers selected for phylogeography and species identification based on 14 deciduous oak species.
| B1 | GACGGTTTTCAGTGCTGGTTATCC | TTTTCATCAATGGTCTGTCC | 55 | 514 | 100 | 0.0016 | |
| B2 | TCTTACGATTTCTGCCCCTTCT | TTCTTAGCGGATCGGTTCAAAA | 53 | 755 | 100 | 0.0008 | |
| B3 | TTGGGATAGATGTAGATGAATAA | TCGGGGGTTGGGATGTAAATAGT | 53 | 612 | 100 | 0.0012 | |
| B4 | ACCCAGTCCATCTGGAAATCTTGGTTC | CGTACAGTACTTTTGTGTTTACGAG | 55 | 698 | 100 | 0.0002 | |
| B9 | ATAATGGCTGAACCTAATAAGATA | TCCCAGCAAATGATGACG | 56 | 379 | 86 | 0.0006 | |
| B13 | CTTGACAGGGCGGTGCTCT | TAATGGGGACGGACTGTAAAT | 54 | 491 | 100 | 0.0056 | |
| B14 | ATTGATCGCGATTTTGAACCT | CCACGAATCTATTAATGCTGTATG | 55 | 435 | 100 | 0.0018 | |
| B17 | AAATCGCACCATCTCTGTAATAGG | CAAAACCGGGTGAATAGTGAGTC | 58 | 884 | 100 | 0.0011 | |
| B29 | TATTCTACGCGCACTCTTACG | AACGGGTTTCTATTCTCACTCTC | 55 | 661 | 100 | 0.0022 | |
| B30 | TGCAAACCAAAGAGAATGATGAC | TCCGAGGACACGCAAAAA | 55 | 618 | 100 | 0.0012 | |
| B31 | TTCGGCCAATGCTCTTAT | TCCACCCCTTGCCTGTTTT | 54 | 781 | 100 | 0.0007 | |
| B36 | ATCCCCTGTTTTCTTCTTTTTC | CAATAATGGTAGTCGTTTCAGTCT | 53 | 493 | 100 | 0.0051 | |
| B37 | CGCGATAGGGTCCGTTCA | CTATTTAGGCAGAGTACCGTCACC | 55 | 757 | 93 | 0.0008 | |
| B38 | ATTCTGATGGTCCGGAAGGG | CCTTATCAGACTGAAACGACTAC | 52 | 440 | 100 | 0.0006 | |
| B39 | GTTATGCATGAACGTAATGCTC | CGCGCATGGTGGATTCACAATCC | 62 | 332 | 100 | 0.0003 | |
| R1 | CCAAATTGACGGGTTAGTGTGA | TTACCTCCGCGGAAAAGATGAT | 55 | 415 | 100 | 0.429 | |
| R7 | AAAGAAAATGATGGATGTAAGAAT | TAATGTAATGATAGTGAAATAGGA | 54 | 483 | 100 | 0.5 |
Primers selected for phylogeographic analysis;
Primers selected for species identification;
Values of Deletion-Insertion polymorphism (DIP).
Estimation of genetic information of seven barcode candidates in DNA barcoding analysis based on the 35 Chinese oak species.
| 205 | 694 | 37 | 33 | 2 | 1 | 0.0130 (0.0043) | |
| 207 | 607 | 23 | 21 | 2 | 0 | 0.0099 (0.0038) | |
| 211 | 502 | 37 | 36 | 11 | 5 | 0.0139 (0.0052) | |
| 209 | 729 | 34 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 0.0123 (0.0038) | |
| 216 | 448 | 29 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 0.0117 (0.0048) | |
| ITS | 201 | 411 | 96 | 86 | 2 | 1 | 0.0389 (0.0095) |
| SAP | 173 | 355 | 52 | 39 | 0 | 0 | 0.0169 (0.0064) |
Information of amplification success for the seven candidate barcodes used in this study.
| Species level | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||
| 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||
| 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||
| 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||
| ITS | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| SAP | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| Overall | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| Individual level | 94 | 100 | 93 | 93 | 100 | |
| 99 | 100 | 89 | 96 | 100 | ||
| 100 | 100 | 94 | 93 | 100 | ||
| 99 | 100 | 93 | 96 | 95 | ||
| 99 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||
| ITS | 96 | 94 | 87 | 93 | 95 | |
| SAP | 75 | 100 | 76 | 89 | 81 | |
| Overall | 95 | 99 | 90 | 94 | 96 | |
Figure 1Ranked values of genetic distances (p-distance) for the seven DNA barcode candidates among 35 Chinese oaks in . X-axes represent the numbers of ranked genetic distances, Y-axes indicate the values of genetic distance. Black solid lines with gray areas show the estimated genetic distances with standard errors for each candidate. Dashed lines correspond to values of the maximum intraspecific divergence revealed for each candidate barcode.
Figure 2Comparison of species resolution for four different barcoding methods (genetic distance-, BLAST-, character-, and tree-based methods) with single to seven barcode combinations based on the 35 Chinese oak species in . Box with error bars indicates 95% confidence intervals, and solid lines in the box show the mean values of species resolution. Black dots indicate outliers for specified barcode combination.
Figure 3NJ tree of the highest species identification rate with the combination of . Gray dots highlight the individuals of identified oak species.