Joseph F Walker1, Ya Yang2, Tao Feng3, Alfonso Timoneda3, Jessica Mikenas4, Vera Hutchison4, Caroline Edwards4, Ning Wang1, Sonia Ahluwalia1, Julia Olivieri4,5, Nathanael Walker-Hale6, Lucas C Majure7, Raúl Puente7, Gudrun Kadereit8,9, Maximilian Lauterbach8,9, Urs Eggli10, Hilda Flores-Olvera11, Helga Ochoterena11, Samuel F Brockington3, Michael J Moore4, Stephen A Smith1. 1. Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, 830 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1048, USA. 2. Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, 1445 Gortner Avenue, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA. 3. Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3EA, UK. 4. Department of Biology, Oberlin College, Science Center K111, 119 Woodland Street, Oberlin, OH, 44074-1097, USA. 5. Institute of Computational and Mathematical Engineering (ICME), Stanford University, 475 Via Ortega, Suite B060, Stanford, CA, 94305-4042, USA. 6. School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Kelburn Parade, Kelburn, Wellington, 6012, New Zealand. 7. Department of Research, Conservation and Collections, Desert Botanical Garden, 1201 N. Galvin Pkwy, Phoenix, AZ, 85008, USA. 8. Institut für Molekulare Physiologie, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099, Mainz, Germany. 9. Institut für Molekulare und Organismische Evolutionsbiologie, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099, Mainz, Germany. 10. Sukkulenten-Sammlung Zürich / Grün Stadt Zürich, Mythenquai 88, CH-8002, Zürich, Switzerland. 11. Departamento de Botánica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado, Postal 70-367, 04510, Mexico City, Mexico.
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: The Caryophyllales contain ~12,500 species and are known for their cosmopolitan distribution, convergence of trait evolution, and extreme adaptations. Some relationships within the Caryophyllales, like those of many large plant clades, remain unclear, and phylogenetic studies often recover alternative hypotheses. We explore the utility of broad and dense transcriptome sampling across the order for resolving evolutionary relationships in Caryophyllales. METHODS: We generated 84 transcriptomes and combined these with 224 publicly available transcriptomes to perform a phylogenomic analysis of Caryophyllales. To overcome the computational challenge of ortholog detection in such a large data set, we developed an approach for clustering gene families that allowed us to analyze >300 transcriptomes and genomes. We then inferred the species relationships using multiple methods and performed gene-tree conflict analyses. KEY RESULTS: Our phylogenetic analyses resolved many clades with strong support, but also showed significant gene-tree discordance. This discordance is not only a common feature of phylogenomic studies, but also represents an opportunity to understand processes that have structured phylogenies. We also found taxon sampling influences species-tree inference, highlighting the importance of more focused studies with additional taxon sampling. CONCLUSIONS: Transcriptomes are useful both for species-tree inference and for uncovering evolutionary complexity within lineages. Through analyses of gene-tree conflict and multiple methods of species-tree inference, we demonstrate that phylogenomic data can provide unparalleled insight into the evolutionary history of Caryophyllales. We also discuss a method for overcoming computational challenges associated with homolog clustering in large data sets.
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: The Caryophyllales contain ~12,500 species and are known for their cosmopolitan distribution, convergence of trait evolution, and extreme adaptations. Some relationships within the Caryophyllales, like those of many large plant clades, remain unclear, and phylogenetic studies often recover alternative hypotheses. We explore the utility of broad and dense transcriptome sampling across the order for resolving evolutionary relationships in Caryophyllales. METHODS: We generated 84 transcriptomes and combined these with 224 publicly available transcriptomes to perform a phylogenomic analysis of Caryophyllales. To overcome the computational challenge of ortholog detection in such a large data set, we developed an approach for clustering gene families that allowed us to analyze >300 transcriptomes and genomes. We then inferred the species relationships using multiple methods and performed gene-tree conflict analyses. KEY RESULTS: Our phylogenetic analyses resolved many clades with strong support, but also showed significant gene-tree discordance. This discordance is not only a common feature of phylogenomic studies, but also represents an opportunity to understand processes that have structured phylogenies. We also found taxon sampling influences species-tree inference, highlighting the importance of more focused studies with additional taxon sampling. CONCLUSIONS: Transcriptomes are useful both for species-tree inference and for uncovering evolutionary complexity within lineages. Through analyses of gene-tree conflict and multiple methods of species-tree inference, we demonstrate that phylogenomic data can provide unparalleled insight into the evolutionary history of Caryophyllales. We also discuss a method for overcoming computational challenges associated with homolog clustering in large data sets.
Authors: Matthew G Johnson; Lisa Pokorny; Steven Dodsworth; Laura R Botigué; Robyn S Cowan; Alison Devault; Wolf L Eiserhardt; Niroshini Epitawalage; Félix Forest; Jan T Kim; James H Leebens-Mack; Ilia J Leitch; Olivier Maurin; Douglas E Soltis; Pamela S Soltis; Gane Ka-Shu Wong; William J Baker; Norman J Wickett Journal: Syst Biol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 15.683
Authors: Gregory W Stull; Xiao-Jian Qu; Caroline Parins-Fukuchi; Ying-Ying Yang; Jun-Bo Yang; Zhi-Yun Yang; Yi Hu; Hong Ma; Pamela S Soltis; Douglas E Soltis; De-Zhu Li; Stephen A Smith; Ting-Shuang Yi Journal: Nat Plants Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 15.793
Authors: Hester Sheehan; Tao Feng; Nathanael Walker-Hale; Samuel Lopez-Nieves; Boas Pucker; Rui Guo; Won C Yim; Roshani Badgami; Alfonso Timoneda; Lijun Zhao; Helene Tiley; Dario Copetti; Michael J Sanderson; John C Cushman; Michael J Moore; Stephen A Smith; Samuel F Brockington Journal: New Phytol Date: 2019-09-29 Impact factor: 10.151
Authors: Maximilian Lauterbach; Marie Claire Veranso-Libalah; Alexander P Sukhorukov; Gudrun Kadereit Journal: Ecol Evol Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 2.912
Authors: Rafaela S Fontenele; Andrew M Salywon; Lucas C Majure; Ilaria N Cobb; Amulya Bhaskara; Jesús A Avalos-Calleros; Gerardo R Argüello-Astorga; Kara Schmidlin; Anthony Khalifeh; Kendal Smith; Joshua Schreck; Michael C Lund; Matias Köhler; Martin F Wojciechowski; Wendy C Hodgson; Raul Puente-Martinez; Koenraad Van Doorslaer; Safaa Kumari; Christian Vernière; Denis Filloux; Philippe Roumagnac; Pierre Lefeuvre; Simone G Ribeiro; Simona Kraberger; Darren P Martin; Arvind Varsani Journal: Viruses Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 5.048