| Literature DB >> 29075476 |
Baowei Ma1, Tianyuan Hu1, Pei Li1, Qingjun Yuan2, Zhaoshou Lin3, Yuhe Tu4, Jia Li1, Xianan Zhang1, Xiaoyi Wu1, Xiujuan Wang1, Luqi Huang2, Wei Gao1.
Abstract
Tripterygium wilfordii (Celastraceae) is a traditional Chinese medicine; and the dried root and rhizome constitute the main officinal parts. Tripterygium wilfordii has been identified as a potential candidate for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, nephritis, asthma, leprosy, and cancer. The phylogenetic relationships within the Tripterygium genus are ambiguous; thus, our aim is to clarify the relationships within this genus using phylogeographic and phylogenetic analyses. Here, we first sequenced three plastid DNA regions (i.e., psbA-trnH, rpl32-trnL, and trnL-trnF) and found that Tripterygium hypoglaucum and T. wilfordii were clustered together based on the strength of the topology in the phylogenetic analysis: T. hypoglaucum is polyphyletic, and T. wilfordii is paraphyletic. A spatial analysis of molecular variance showed that the best group value is 4, and the groups were almost consistent with the topology of in the phylogenetic analysis. The Mantel analyses of Tripterygium using IBD web showed statistically significant relationships between genetic and geographical distance distributions (r = .3479, p < .0001). The molecular dating using Fossil calibration indicated that the divergence in Tripterygium was approximately 8.13 Ma. Furthermore, we also analyzed four DNA regions (i.e., ITS2, psbA-trnH, matK, and rbcL) that were obtained from the NCBI nucleotide database; these results showed that T. wilfordii and T. hypoglaucum clustered together, while Tripterygium regelii represented a separate cluster. Tripterygium hypoglaucum and T. wilfordii were never distinct lineages, and the species circumscriptions are artificial. We propose that T. wilfordii and T. hypoglaucum are conspecific, while T. regelii likely constitutes a separate species.Entities:
Keywords: Tripterygium; haplotype network; phylogenetic analysis; phylogeographic analysis; species delimitation
Year: 2017 PMID: 29075476 PMCID: PMC5648662 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3344
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Plastid regions and sequences of primers used in this study
| Region | Primer names | Primer sequences |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| GTTATGCATGAACGTAATGCTC |
|
| CGCGCATGGTGGATTCACAATCC | |
|
|
| CTGCTTCCTAAGAGCAGCGT |
|
| CAGTTCCAAAAAAACGTACTTC | |
|
|
| CGAAATCGGTAGACGCTACG |
|
| ATTTGAACTGGTGACACGAG |
Figure 1Geographical distribution of 120 samples. Maps were drawn using the software ArcGIS version 10.2 (http://desktop.arcgis.com). ▲: Tripterygium wilfordii; ■: Tripterygium hypoglaucum; ★: Tripterygium regelii; ●: Celastrus orbiculatus
Detail message about the composition of haplotypes by the combined three cpDNA (psbA‐trnH + rpl32‐trnL + trnL‐trnF) regions
| Name of haplotypes | Number of samples | Composition of samples |
|---|---|---|
| cHap1 | 5 | CoBJ1 CoBJ2 CoBJ3 CoBJ4 CoBJ5 |
| cHap2 | 1 | CoBJ6 |
| cHap3 | 5 | ThGZ1 ThGZ2 ThGZ3 ThGZ4 ThGZ5 |
| cHap4 | 5 | ThYN1 ThYN2 ThYN3 ThYN4 ThYN5 |
| cHap5 | 10 | TrJL1 TrJL10 TrJL2 TrJL3 TrJL4 TrJL5 TrJL6 TrJL7 TrJL8 TrJL9 |
| cHap6 | 49 | TwAH1 TwAH2 TwAH3 TwAH4 TwAH5 TwAH6 TwAH7 TwAH8 TwFJ1 TwFJ10 TwFJ11 TwFJ12 TwFJ13 TwFJ14 TwFJ15 TwFJ16 TwFJ17 TwFJ18 TwFJ19 TwFJ2 TwFJ20 TwFJ21 TwFJ3 TwFJ5 TwFJ6 TwFJ7 TwFJ8 TwFJ9 TwGX1 TwGZ2 TwGZ3 TwGZ7 TwHB1 TwHB2 TwHB3 TwHB4 TwHB5 TwHB6 TwHB7 TwHB8 TwJX10 TwJX11 TwJX7 TwJX8 TwJX9 TwZJ2 TwZJ4 TwZJ5 TwZJ6 |
| cHap7 | 1 | TwFJ4 |
| cHap8 | 1 | TwGX2 |
| cHap9 | 3 | TwGX3 TwGX4 TwGX6 |
| cHap10 | 1 | TwGX5 |
| cHap11 | 3 | TwGZ1 TwGZ4 TwGZ5 |
| cHap12 | 2 | TwGZ6 TwGZ8 |
| cHap13 | 13 | TwHN1 TwHN10 TwHN11 TwHN2 TwHN3 TwHN4 TwHN5 TwHN6 TwHN7 TwHN8 TwHN9 TwZJ7 TwZJ8 |
| cHap14 | 6 | TwJX1 TwJX2 TwJX3 TwJX4 TwJX5 TwJX6 |
| cHap15 | 6 | TwSC1 TwSC2 TwSC3 TwSC4 TwSC6 TwZJ3 |
| cHap16 | 1 | TwSC5 |
| cHap17 | 7 | TwYN1 TwYN2 TwYN3 TwYN4 TwYN5 TwYN6 TwYN7 |
| cHap18 | 1 | TwZJ1 |
Detail message about the composition of haplotypes by the combined four DNA (ITS2 + psbA‐trnH + matK + rbcL) regions
| Name of haplotypes | Number of samples | Composition of samples |
|---|---|---|
| zHap1 | 1 | Co |
| zHap2 | 2 | Th1 Th2 |
| zHap3 | 1 | Th10 |
| zHap4 | 1 | Th11 |
| zHap5 | 1 | Th12 |
| zHap6 | 2 | Th13 Th14 |
| zHap7 | 1 | Th15 |
| zHap8 | 1 | Th3 |
| zHap9 | 4 | Th4 Th5 Th6 Th7 |
| zHap10 | 1 | Th8 |
| zHap11 | 1 | Th9 |
| zHap12 | 5 | Tr1 Tr2 Tr3 Tr4 Tr5 |
| zHap13 | 1 | Tw1 |
| zHap14 | 2 | Tw2 Tw3 |
| zHap15 | 2 | Tw4 Tw5 |
Figure 2(a) Haplotype network of the combined three cpDNA (psbA‐trnH, rpl32‐trnL, and trnL‐trnF); (b) Haplotype network of the combined four DNA (ITS2, psbA‐trnH, matK, and rbcL) regions using median joining method. Blue dots stand for Tripterygium wilfordii, red dots stand for Tripterygium hypoglaucum, green dots stands for Tripterygium regelii, and black dots stand for Celastrus orbiculatus
Results of spatial analysis of the molecular variance (SAMOVA) for K = 2–7
|
| FSC | FST | FCT (Rate of change value) | Groups |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 0.82353 | 0.94151 | 0.66854 |
|
| 3 | 0.77325 | 0.93615 | 0.71841 (0.04987) | |
| 4 | 0.68183 | 0.93303 | 0.78951 (0.07110) | |
| 5 | 0.58853 | 0.93148 | 0.83347 (0.04396) | |
| 6 | 0.53193 | 0.93132 | 0.85328 (0.01981) | |
| 7 | 0.49528 | 0.93071 | 0.86271 (0.00943) |
The all p‐values of FCT, FST, and FSC were estimated based on 1,000 random initial conditions, and exhibited high significance (p < .001) in each tested group.
Figure 3Phylogenetic trees of haplotypes based on the combined three plastid DNA regions (a) (psbA‐trnH, rpl32‐trnL, and trnL‐trnF) and the combined four DNA regions (b) (ITS2, psbA‐trnH, matK, and rbcL) using Bayesian inference method. The number on each branch indicates the posterior probability (PP). Model selection: (a) GTR+I+G; (b) GTR+I. The average standard deviation of the split frequencies, (a) 0.006417; (b) 0.002667
Figure 4BEAST‐derived chronogram of haplotypes based on the combined cpDNA (psbA‐trnH, rpl32‐trnL, and trnL‐trnF) sequences. Blue bars on each node show 95% highest posterior density (HPD) confidence intervals for divergence estimates. The number on each branch indicates the posterior probability (PP). The node age (Myr) of the major lineages was shown near the blue bars