| Literature DB >> 31534857 |
Jun Wang1, Xin-Yi Dai1, Xiao-Dong Xu1, Zi-Yi Zhang1, Dan-Na Yu1,2, Kenneth B Storey3, Jia-Yong Zhang1,2.
Abstract
Cerambycidae is one of the most diversified groups within Coleoptera and includes nearly 35,000 known species. The relationships at the subfamily level within Cerambycidae have not been convincingly demonstrated and the gene rearrangement of mitochondrial genomes in Cerambycidae remains unclear due to the low numbers of sequenced mitogenomes. In the present study, we determined five complete mitogenomes of Cerambycidae and investigated the phylogenetic relationship among the subfamilies of Cerambycidae based on mitogenomes. The mitogenomic arrangement of all five species was identical to the ancestral Cerambycidae type without gene rearrangement. Remarkably, however, two large intergenic spacers were detected in the mitogenome of Pterolophia sp. ZJY-2019. The origins of these intergenic spacers could be explained by the slipped-strand mispairing and duplication/random loss models. A conserved motif was found between trnS2 and nad1 gene, which was proposed to be a binding site of a transcription termination peptide. Also, tandem repeat units were identified in the A + T-rich region of all five mitogenomes. The monophyly of Lamiinae and Prioninae was strongly supported by both MrBayes and RAxML analyses based on nucleotide datasets, whereas the Cerambycinae and Lepturinae were recovered as non-monophyletic.Entities:
Keywords: Cerambycidae; Intergenic spacer; Mitochondrial genome; Phylogenetic relationship
Year: 2019 PMID: 31534857 PMCID: PMC6732212 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7633
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Species used to construct the phylogenetic relationships along with GenBank accession numbers.
| Order | Family | Species | GenBank No. | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cerambycidae | Lamiinae |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| This study | |||
|
| This study | |||
|
| This study | |||
|
| This study | |||
|
| Directly submitted | |||
|
| Directly submitted | |||
| Cerambycinae |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| This study | |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| Directly submitted | |||
|
| Directly submitted | |||
| Prioninae |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| Directly submitted | |||
| Lepturinae |
| Directly submitted | ||
|
| Directly submitted | |||
|
| Directly submitted | |||
|
| Directly submitted | |||
|
| Directly submitted | |||
|
| Directly submitted | |||
|
| Directly submitted | |||
| Necydalinae |
| Directly submitted | ||
| Disteniidae | Disteniinae |
| Directly submitted | |
| Vesperidae | Philinae |
| ||
| Vesperinae |
| Directly submitted | ||
| Chrysomelidae | Galerucinae |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
|
Notes.
Partial genome.
The partition schemes and best-fitting models selected of 13 protein-coding genes in 13P26 data.
| Partition 1 | atp6_pos1, cox1 pos 1, cox2_pos1, cox3_pos1, cytb_pos1 | GTR + I + G |
| Partition 2 | atp6_pos2, cox1_pos2, cox2_pos2, cox3_pos2, cytb_pos2, nd3_pos2 | TVM + I + G |
| Partition 3 | atp8_pos1, atp8_pos2, nd2_pos2, nd3_pos3, nd6_pos2 | GTR + I + G |
| Partition 4 | nd1_pos1, nd4l_pos1, nd4_pos1, nd5 pos1 | GTR + I + G |
| Partition 5 | nd1_pos2, nd4_pos2, nd4l_pos2, nd5_pos2 | GTR + I + G |
| Partition 6 | nd2_pos2, nd3_pos2, nd6_pos2 | TVM + I + G |
The partition schemes and best-fitting models selected of 12 protein-coding genes in 12P38 data.
| Partition 1 | atp6_pos1, cox2_pos1, cox3_pos1, cytb_pos1 | GTR + I + G |
| Partition 2 | atp6_pos2, cox2_pos2, cox3_pos2, cytb_pos2, nd3_pos2 | TVM + I + G |
| Partition 3 | atp8_pos1, atp8_pos2, nd6_pos2 | HKY + G |
| Partition 4 | cox1 pos 1 | SYM + G |
| Partition 5 | cox1_pos2 | F81 + G |
| Partition 6 | nd1_pos1, nd4l_pos1, nd4_pos1, nd5 pos1 | GTR + I + G |
| Partition 7 | nd1_pos2, nd4_pos2, nd4l_pos2, nd5_pos2, | GTR + I + G |
| Partition 8 | nd3_pos1, nd6_pos1 | GTR + I + G |
Base composition of Cerambycidae mitochondrial genomes.
| Species | A + T(%) | AT-skew | GC-skew | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mito | PCGs | rRNAs | AT-richregion | Mito | PCGs | rRNAs | AT-richregion | Mito | PCGs | rRNAs | AT-richregion | |
| 79.1 | 77.8 | 81.1 | 87.1 | 0.03 | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.20 | 0.01 | 0.38 | 0.24 | |
| 76.4 | 76.4 | 78.6 | 87.4 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 0.49 | 0.45 | |
| 75.3 | 73.2 | 78.6 | 86.2 | 0.023 | 0.17 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.26 | 0.02 | 0.39 | 0.32 | |
| 73.2 | 71.1 | 75.7 | 80.3 | 0.10 | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.07 | 0.18 | 0.03 | 0.36 | 0.21 | |
| 76.7 | 75.1 | 81.7 | 82.8 | 0.02 | 0.18 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.22 | 0.04 | 0.36 | 0.18 | |
Figure 1The RSCU of five longicorn beetle mitochondrial genomes.
Codon families are provided on the x-axis along with the different combinations of synonymous codons that code for that amino acid. RSCU (relative synonymous codon usage) is defined on the Y axis.
Figure 2Putative mechanisms for formation of the two large intergenic regions (IGRs) that exist in Pterolophia sp. ZJY-2019.
(A) The slipped-strand mispairing and random loss model to explain the 157 bp-IGR between trnS2 and nad1. The CS indicates the 18 bp conservative sequence TTACTAAATTTAATTAACTAAA. (B) The duplication/random loss model to explain the 184 bp-IGR between trnC and trnY.
Figure 3Phylogenetic relationships of Cerambycidae in BI and ML analyses.
The data includes 23 species of Cerambycidae as the ingroup and three species of Chrysomelidae as the outgroup. The GenBank accession numbers of all species are also shown.
Figure 4Phylogenetic relationships of Cerambycidae in BI and ML analyses.
The data includes 35 species of Cerambycidae as the ingroup and three species of Chrysomelidae as the outgroup. The GenBank accession numbers of all species are also shown.