| Literature DB >> 30223774 |
Chih-Kai Yang1,2, Bing-Hong Huang1, Shao-Wei Ho1, Meng-Yuan Huang3, Jenn-Che Wang1, Jian Gao4, Pei-Chun Liao5.
Abstract
Entities:
Keywords: Adaptive evolution; Chemical defenses; Leaf epicuticular wax; Lithocarpus; Phylogenetic signal; Physical defenses
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30223774 PMCID: PMC6142356 DOI: 10.1186/s12870-018-1420-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Fig. 1Species tree and hypotheses of positive selection on LAEWC trait-shift events. Three positive selection hypotheses are: (a) positive selection independently acted on lineages that gained LAEWC, (b) positive selection independently acted on lineages of lost LAEWC, and (c) positive selection acted on the ancestor of all LAEWC lineages and secondarily acted on the branch of loss LAEWC. The gray area indicates the species with LAEWC. The solid bars and hollow bars indicate the gain events and loss events of LAEWC, respectively. (d) The species tree of the studied Lithocarpus species reconstructed using six LAEWC unrelated genes. Bold branches indicate > 95% posterior probability supporting values for grouping. Species with LAEWC were marked in bold, which revealed non-monophyletic relationship of either LAEWC species or non-LAEWC species. Values near the nodes are the estimated splitting time (Mya) with 95% highest posterior density (gray bars). P and Q at the geological time scale axis are Pliocene and Quaternary, respectively
Fig. 2Details of the abaxial layer of leaf epidermis of species of the genus Lithocarpus using Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). a L. amygdalifolius; (b) L. brevicaudatus; (c) L. cornea; (d) L. dodonaeifolius; (e) L. formosanus; (f) L. glaber; (g) L. hanceii; (h) L. harlandii; (i) L. kawakamii; (j) L. konishii; (k) L. lepidocarpus; (l) L. nantoensis; (m) L. shinsuiensis; (n) L. taitoensis. The scale bar represents 200 μm
Fig. 3Gene trees of LAEWC related genes (a) CER1, (b) CER3, (c) CER5, and (d) CER7. Tree topologies shown here are based on the neighbor-joining method and the branches with bold indicate bootstrap values > 50% for supporting the deriving groups. Values of the nodes indicate the posterior probabilities of the supporting values inferred by the maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI) methods (ML/BI). Dashes indicate the posterior probability < 50%. The operational taxonomic units labeled in bold are the species with LAEWC. Codes after the species name are the haplotypes cloned in this study
Results of likelihood ratio test of hypotheses of positive selection on LAEWC trait shift. The result shows that most LAEWC related genes were not positively selected during the trait shift of LAEWC except the CER1 under the hypothesis 1 (positive selection independently acted on the gain of LAEWC)
| Hypothesisa | Gene | ln | ln | 2Δ | df |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesis 1 |
| − 2969.327 | − 2965.950 | 6.754 | 1 | 0.009 |
|
| − 2923.209 | −2923.041 | 0.338 | 1 | 0.561 | |
|
| − 3516.913 | −3516.577 | 0.670 | 1 | 0.413 | |
|
| −2009.028 | −2008.247 | 1.561 | 1 | 0.211 | |
| Hypothesis 2 |
| −2969.327 | −2969.322 | 0.010 | 1 | 0.919 |
|
| −2923.209 | −2923.133 | 0.153 | 1 | 0.696 | |
|
| −3516.913 | −3516.908 | 0.010 | 1 | 0.921 | |
|
| −2009.028 | −2007.660 | 2.735 | 1 | 0.098 | |
| Hypothesis 3 |
| −2969.327 | − 2967.980 | 2.694 | 2 | 0.260 |
|
| −2923.209 | −2923.210 | 0 | 2 | NA | |
|
| −3516.913 | −3516.913 | 0 | 2 | 1 | |
|
| −2009.028 | −2007.662 | 2.731 | 2 | 0.255 |
aHypothesis 1: Fig. 1a; Hypothesis 2: Fig. 1b; Hypothesis 3: Fig. 1c
blnL: natural logarithm of the likelihood of null model; lnL: natural logarithm of the likelihood of alternative model
Logistic regression of every ecophysiological trait with the presence or absence of LAEWC, which revealed non-significant correlation with LAEWC in all ecophysiological traits
| Variable | Estimate | SE | z value | Pr (>|z|) | log L | LRTb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nulla | – | – | – | – | − 9.561 | – |
| YII | 14.740 | 14.780 | 0.997 | 0.319 | −9.018 | 0.297 |
| PA | 0.033 | 0.031 | 1.045 | 0.296 | −8.895 | 0.249 |
| δ13C | 0.665 | 0.748 | 0.889 | 0.374 | −9.130 | 0.354 |
| δ15N | −1.412 | 1.072 | −1.317 | 0.188 | −8.174 | 0.096 |
| C | 94.100 | 58.980 | 1.595 | 0.111 | −6.665 | 0.016 |
| N | − 176.590 | 126.725 | −1.393 | 0.163 | −8.348 | 0.119 |
| C/N | 0.171 | 0.101 | 1.697 | 0.090 | −7.638 | 0.050 |
athe empty model
bthe likelihood ratio test in which the model is compared with the empty model using 2× delta log likelihood (2ΔL)
Fig. 4Phylogenetic principal component analysis (pPCA) conducted with the reference tree. Black wording indicates abbreviation of each species (see Fig. 1), while the red wording indicates ecophysiological traits. (C:carbon content; N: nitrogen content; PA: phenolic acid; C/N: ratio of carbon and nitrogen content; d13C: δ13C; d15N: δ15N; waxy: LAEWC state; Alt: altitude; YII: phytochemical yield of photosystem II)
Phylogenetic signals of ecophysiological traits with species tree and four LAEWC-related-gene trees
| Test | YII | PA | δ13C | δ15N | C | N | C/N | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species tree | Pagel’s λ | 6.90E-05 | 0.637 | 6.90E-05 | 0.363 | 6.90E-05 | 6.90E-05 | 6.90E-05 |
| Blomberg’s K | 0.267 | 0.326 | 0.445 | 0.458 | 0.241 | 0.170 | 0.184 | |
| CER1 gene tree | Pagel’s λ | 0.567 | 0.640 | 6.70E-05 | 0.527 | 4.25E-05 | 6.70E-05 | 7.55E-05 |
| Blomberg’s K | 0.164 | 0.483* | 0.353 | 0.355 | 0.096 | 0.150 | 0.141 | |
| CER3 gene tree | Pagel’s λ | 6.79E-05 | 0.870* | 6.79E-05 | 0.612 | 6.79E-05 | 6.79E-05 | 6.79E-05 |
| Blomberg’s K | 0.201 | 0.549* | 0.205 | 0.254 | 0.161 | 0.173 | 0.204 | |
| CER5 gene tree | Pagel’s λ | 6.72E-05 | 0.453 | 0.077 | 0.519 | 6.72E-05 | 6.72E-05 | 6.72E-05 |
| Blomberg’s K | 0.211 | 0.088 | 0.206 | 0.196 | 0.074 | 0.209 | 0.290* | |
| CER7 gene tree | Pagel’s λ | 6.90E-05 | 0.637 | 6.90E-05 | 0.363 | 6.90E-05 | 6.90E-05 | 6.90E-05 |
| Blomberg’s K | 0.267 | 0.326 | 0.445 | 0.458 | 0.241 | 0.170 | 0.184 |
*P < 0.05