Next Article in Journal
Calcification in Three Common Calcified Algae from Phuket, Thailand: Potential Relevance on Seawater Carbonate Chemistry and Link to Photosynthetic Process
Previous Article in Journal
Monoterpene Enrichments Have Positive Impacts on Soil Bacterial Communities and the Potential of Application in Bioremediation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 10
Issue 11
10.3390/plants10112534
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Phylogeny of Maleae (Rosaceae) Based on Complete Chloroplast Genomes Supports the Distinction of Aria, Chamaemespilus and Torminalis as Separate Genera, Different from Sorbus sp.

by
Bartosz Ulaszewski
,
Sandra Jankowska-Wróblewska
,
Katarzyna Świło
and
Jarosław Burczyk
*
Department of Genetics, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Kazimierz Wielki University, Chodkiewicza 30, 85-064 Bydgoszcz, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2021, 10(11), 2534; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112534
Submission received: 14 October 2021 / Revised: 16 November 2021 / Accepted: 19 November 2021 / Published: 21 November 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Systematics, Taxonomy, Nomenclature and Classification)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Several genera formerly contained within the genus Sorbus L. sensu lato have been proposed as separate taxa, including Aria, Chamaemespilus and Torminalis. However, molecular evidence for such distinctions are rather scarce. We assembled the complete chloroplast genome of Sorbus aucuparia, another representative of Sorbus s.s., and performed detailed comparisons with the available genomes of Aria edulis, Chamaemespilus alpina and Torminalis glaberrima. Additionally, using 110 complete chloroplast genomes of the Maleae representatives, we constructed the phylogenetic tree of the tribe using Maximum Likelihood methods. The chloroplast genome of S. aucuparia was found to be similar to other species within Maleae. The phylogenetic tree of the Maleae tribe indicated that A. edulis, C. alpina and T. glaberrima formed a concise group belonging to a different clade (related to Malus) than the one including Sorbus s.s. (related to Pyrus). However, Aria and Chamaemespilus appeared to be more closely related to each other than to Torminalis. Our results provide additional support for considering Aria, Chamaemespilus and Torminalis as separate genera different from Sorbus s.s.

1. Introduction

The family Rosaceae Juss. consists of about 6000 species classified in 120 genera (Catalogue of Life; https://www.catalogueoflife.org/ [1], accessed on 17 May 2021). However, phylogenetic relationships within Rosaceae are problematic due to considerable diversity in morphology and the possibility for hybridization and apomixes among the species [2,3]. There have been numerous studies examining relationships in the Rosaceae family [3]; however, it is important to resolve the phylogeny at lower taxonomic levels at a finer scale [4].
The tribe Maleae consists of shrubs and small trees and is of great economic and ecological importance [4]. It consists of about 1200 species in nearly 40 genera (depending on classification); however, 21 genera are represented by fewer than 10 species each, including 11 monospecific genera. Sorbus L. is among the genera incorporating a considerable number of species. Formerly, Sorbus sensu lato included several species currently distinguished as separate genera (e.g., Aria (Pers.) Host, Chamaemespilus Medik., Cormus Spach, Torminalis Medik.) [5,6,7]. However, in many research papers, dated taxonomical names are commonly used [8], which confounds the Maleae phylogeny. Therefore, the goal of this paper was to resolve the phylogenetic structure of the Maleae tribe by using new molecular evidence.
Since 2007, DNA sequencing has been used to guide the phylogenetic reconstruction in an attempt to clarify the status of the Malae group. [2,5,6,7,9]. In particular, chloroplast genome sequences are useful in generating molecular phylogenetic relationships as they are generally free from paralogues, have a moderate size and relatively low nucleotide substitution rates. However, the possibility of chloroplast capture, i.e., the sharing of chloroplast genomes among hybridized species [10,11], may complicate the inference of phylogeny.
The three genera distinguished from Sorbus s.l., namely Aria, Chamaemespilus and Torminalis, usually form a clade separate from Sorbus sensu stricto [2,4]. However, their phylogenetic position relative to other representatives of Maleae has rarely been investigated in detail [3,7,12]. The existing studies have either used partial cpDNA regions [4,9], or the analyses were confounded by use of dated taxonomic nomenclature [8].
In this study, we present a new assembly of the complete chloroplast genome of Sorbus aucuparia L., another representative of Sorbus s.s. Given the availability of complete chloroplast genomes of several Maleae species assembled recently by various research groups [8,13,14,15,16,17,18], we attempted to reconstruct the phylogeny of the Maleae tribe based on complete chloroplast genomes, with a special focus on the relationships among the genera formerly assigned to Sorbus s.l.

2. Results

2.1. Chloroplast Genome of Sorbus aucuparia

The de novo assembly of Sorbus aucuparia chloroplast genome is a typical 160,108 bp long quadripartite structure consisting of an 88,214 bp large single copy (LSC) region and a 19,506 bp small single copy (SSC) region, and two 26,194 bp inverted repeat regions (Figure 1). The genome consists of 130 genes in total, out of which we identified 85 protein-coding genes, 37 tRNA genes and 8 rRNA genes (Table S1).

2.2. Phylogeny of Maleae Tribe Based on Complete Chloroplast Genomes

The phylogenetic tree with the highest log likelihood (−288,538.88) estimated based on the Maximum Likelihood method for 110 complete chloroplast genomes representing 36 genera is shown in Figure 2. The percentage of trees in which the associated taxa clustered together is shown next to the branches. There were a total of 145,424 nucleotide positions in the final dataset; however, about 47.46% of sites appeared to be evolutionarily invariable in the investigated dataset. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated (complete deletion option).
Four well-supported clades (A–D) could be resolved in the phylogenetic tree of the Maleae tribe (Figure 2). Clade A included Rhaphiolepis, Heteromeles, Photinia, Cotoneaster, Pyrus, Griffitharia, Alinaria, Sorbus and Stranvaesia. The most diverse clade B included Osteomeles, Pourthiaea, Malus, Tormimalus, Eriolobus, Aria, Chamaemespilus, Torminalis, Aronia, Cydonia, Dichothomanthes, Chaenomeles, Pseudocydonia, Docynia, Prameles, Sinomalus and Phippsiomeles. Clade C involved Hesperomeles, Crataegus, Mespilus, Amelanchier, Malacomeles and Peraphyllum. Finally, the most divergent clade D included Vaquelinia, Lindleya and Kageneckia (Figure 2).
Several genera represented by more than one species, given the list of species used in our analyses, appear to form monophyletic groups. This includes Rhaphiolepis, Photinia, Cotoneaster, Pyrus, Sorbus, Stranvaesia, Osteomeles, Pourthiaea, Chaenomeles, Docynia, Phippsiomeles, Hesperomeles, Vauquelinia and Kageneckia (listed from top to bottom of the diagram presented in Figure 2). Notably, Sorbus species form a well-supported clade related to Pyrus. On the other hand, the three species that are of special interest in this study: A. edulis, C. alpina and T. glaberrima form a distinct clade sister to Pourthiaea clade and the multispecific clade composed of Malus ioensis, Tormimalus florentina and Eriolobus trilobatus. It is worth noting that the chloroplast genomes of two individuals of T. glaberrima, assembled by different research teams, clustered together on the phylogenetic tree.
Besides the three species of special interest in this study, there were several other genera represented by single species. Heteromeles arbutifolia was found to be related to Photinia. Griffitharia thibetica and Alinaria folgneri clustered together among the Pyrus and Sorbus clades. Crataegus kansuensis and Mespilus germanica formed a clade sister to Hesperomeles. Malacomeles denticulata and Peraphyllum ramosissimum appeared to be located within the clade of Amelanchier.
Intriguingly, clade B was the most diverse with 19 genera. Some members of Malus and Prameles were separated between different sub-clades and some members of Malus and Sinomalus formed the same clade.

2.3. Detailed Comparative Analysis of Four Chloroplast Genomes

Detailed comparisons between the chloroplast genomes of four species, Sorbus aucuparia (MT610101), Torminalis glaberrima (KY457242), Aria edulis (MN061998) and Chamaemespilus alpina (MN061999), revealed variations across the whole genome and in all basic assembly elements (LSC, SSC and IR), although the composition and order of genes and other annotated elements remained the same (Table S2; Figure S1).
The cpDNA of newly assembled S. aucuparia was found to be the smallest (160,108 bp) among the four species; however, the different sections of the chloroplast genome appeared to have minor differences. The four investigated species have the same numbers of protein-coding, tRNA and rRNA genes, and pseudogenes (Table S2).
A more detailed investigation of alignments between the four genomes shows that the majority of differences are located in non-coding regions. Between these four species, six possible pairwise alignment were generated (Table 1). The total number of non-matching nucleotides ranged from 560 for the A. edulis and C. alpina pair, to 3004 for the S. aucuparia and T. glaberrima pair. Indels were the dominant source of pairwise differences (80.4 –88.7%). Interestingly, the proportion of nucleotide substitutions was larger when pairwise comparisons involved S. aucuparia. Only 11 mismatches were found in coding regions of A. edulis and C. alpina, about 60 when T. glaberrima was compared to A. edulis or C. alpina, but the largest number of mismatches in coding regions (107–124) were noticed when pairwise comparisons involved S. aucuparia (Table 1).

3. Discussion

Phylogenomics based on complete chloroplast genomes is increasingly becoming the most attractive means of obtaining initial insight into the phylogeny of several plant taxa [19,20,21]. However, for this purpose complete and well-assembled chloroplast genomes of the species of interest are needed. Fortunately, due to advances in next-generation sequencing, and bioinformatic assembly approaches, a large number of newly developed chloroplast genomes have become available. The new assembly of the chloroplast genome of S. aucuparia obtained in this study extends the list of the available cpDNA genomes of the species belonging to the Maleae tribe, enabling a closer look into its phylogeny. The chloroplast genome of S. aucuparia assembled in this study is similar to other chloroplast genomes of the representatives of the Maleae tribe in terms of genome size, quadripartite structure and gene content [8,13,15,17].
Chloroplast phylogenomic analyses within the Maleae tribe members are difficult because this tribe seems to be less diverse compared to other taxonomic groups within Rosaceae [3]. In general, our cpDNA-exclusive phylogeny is similar to the Maleae phylogeny presented by Zhang et al. [3]. It is comparable to the phylogeny constructed by using chloroplast and ITS sequences, as well as with phenotypic characteristics presented by Lo and Donoghue [12] (Figure 4 in [12]). The phylogenetic position of several genera investigated in this paper (Figure 2) are also in line with the results of previous studies. For example, Rhaphiolepis (following refinement by Liu et al. [22]), Heteromeles, Photinia (updated by Liu et al. [17] and Cotoneaster form the concise group located within clade A, which has been previously demonstrated by other authors [8]. The complex clade C involving Hesperomeles, Crataegus, Mespilus, Amelanchier, Malacomeles and Peraphyllum appeared to be well resolved and positioned as basalmost compared to clades A and B, similarly as in previous studies [8,17]. Vauquelinia, Lindleya and Kageneckia formed a well-supported clade D (Figure 2), quite distant from other Maleae species [8,12].
Finally, clade B appeared to be the most complex and challenging in the context of the genus Malus. Tormimalus florentina was earlier classified as belonging to Malus s.l. (Malus florentina); however, its taxonomical status has been clarified by Holub [23]. Eriolobus trilobata and Docyniopsis tschosnoskii were wrongly described in the NCBI database with their synonym names as Malus trilobata and Malus tschosnoskii, respectively (Table S3). The location of Malus ioensis on the phylogenetic tree close to Tormimalus and Eriolobus, raises questions about the origin of that taxon. Recent taxonomic nomenclature changes proposed by Rushforth [7] and accepted in CoL [1], mean that several other species belonging previously to the genus Malus appear in this study as Sinomalus or Prameles (Table S3). Without these changes, the apple clade would appear to be nearly monophyletic. The polyphyletic origin of Malus has been reported by several authors [8,17,18]; however, the genus deserves closer attention extending beyond the scope of this study.
The complete chloroplast genome of T. glaberrima (synonym name: Sorbus torminalis) assembled by our research team [14] was one of the earliest among the representatives of the Maleae tribe, besides the Malus and Pyrus species. It was already documented to be more closely related to Malus than to Pyrus or even Sorbus s.s. [14,15,18]. Our analysis based on chloroplast genomes fully supports the distinction of Aria, Chamaemespilus and Torminalis as separate genera, quite distinct from the genus Sorbus s.s. [5,6,7].
Among the three genera of special interest in this study, Aria and Chamaemespilus seem to be more closely related. This is supported by their close location on the phylogenetic tree (Figure 2) and is also corroborated by the lowest number of pairwise mismatches (560 bp) with only 11 (1.8%) mismatches in coding sequences between their chloroplast genomes (Table 1). The pairwise comparisons of these two species with T. glaberrima indicated about 1900 mismatched bp, with about 60 (2.6%) of them located in coding sequences and, thus, corresponds with its basal location to Aria and Chamaemespilus on the phylogenetic tree (Figure 2). However, the mean genetic distance among the chloroplast genomes of the three species seems to be low (6.72 × 10−4), as compared, for example, to the mean genetic distance within the genus Sorbus s.s. (7.38 × 10−4) (Table S4), thus, somehow questioning the genus status of Aria, Chamaemespilus and Torminalis and pointing to the need for further research. In the end, the clarification of the Aria, Chamaemespilus, and Torminalis phylogenetic position supports the monophyly character of the genus Sorbus. Although our investigation involved only a handful of Sorbus s.s. species [24], they formed a concise clade as previously seen in other studies [24].
However, some discrepancies between nuclear and chloroplast-based phylogenies are common in plants, including Rosaceae [3,12,25,26]. While not investigated in this study, the phylogenetic position of Aria, Chamaemespilus and Torminalis based on nuclear DNA sequences seems to be not fully resolved. For example, Liu et al. [17], using nrDNA data, located these three species within the same clade but jointly with Sorbus thibetica. In another study, the same clade included also Pyrus communis [8]. Xiang et al. [25], based on 113 nuclear genes, found Sorbus aria (synonym of Aria edulis) to be closely related with other Sorbus species. Interestingly, Lo and Donoghue [12] suggested that Micromeles (synonym of Alinaria) resulted from hybridization between Aria and Sorbus s.s., thus pointing to their close relationship. We believe that a more detailed picture of the phylogenetic relationships between Sorbus, Torminalis and other Maleae genera should soon be available given the upcoming complete nuclear genomes of several taxa assembled, among others, by our research team.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. De Novo Assembly of the Chloroplast Genome of Sorbus aucuparia

In this paper, we first assembled the complete chloroplast genome of Sorbus aucuparia L., the representative of Sorbus s.s. The material used for chloroplast genome assembly of S. aucuparia was collected in spring 2019 from a > 50-year-old individual (Figure S2), located in a Tryszczyn Forest Nursery, Poland (53.171761 N, 17.941530 E). The DNA was isolated from leaves using a protocol described in Wang et al. [27]. Genomic library construction (TruSeq DNA PCR-Free, 350-bp insert; Illumina, USA) and sequencing on NovaSeq 6000 device (Illumina, USA) was outsourced to Macrogen Inc. (Republic of Korea). The sequencing generated 646 million paired-end 151-bp reads.
Chloroplast genome was assembled de novo with 10% of randomly selected primary Illumina reads using NOVOPlasty v 4.1. [28] and rbcL sequence (KM360990) of Sorbus domestica as seed. This generated a 160,108 bp circular genome with 8688x coverage. Ambiguous nucleotides were manually corrected with the assistance of bwa-mem [29] for Illumina read mapping to the obtained genome and Tablet [30] for results visualization. The annotation was conducted with GeSeq ChloroBox [31] using chloroplast genomes of Sorbus commixta var. ulleungensis (MG011706), Sorbus prattii (MK814479) and Sorbus tianschanica (MK920289) as references. The annotated assembly of the chloroplast genome of S. aucuparia was uploaded to GenBank (MT610101).

4.2. Phylogeny of the Maleae Tribe Based on Complete Chloroplast Genomes

The available complete chloroplast genomes of Maleae species were obtained from the NCBI website. The complete list of the species used in this study and relevant chloroplast genome accession numbers are enclosed in Table S3. However, because there were some discrepancies in taxon names between NCBI and Catalogue of Life (CoL) [1] databases, we finally used the names of accepted species as they appear in CoL [1], with few exceptions. Recently, some authors have provided the revision of Photinia complex based on complete chloroplast genomes and nrDNA sequences, [17] where some species considered previously as Photinia were promoted to already existing genus Stranvaesia Lindl., but some others were assigned to the newly proposed genus Phippsiomeles [17]. The list of species names is included in Table S3. In total, 110 complete chloroplast genomes originating from 36 genera were used for phylogeny reconstruction of the Maleae tribe. This included the chloroplast genome of Sorbus aucuparia developed in this study.
Nucleotide sequences of the complete chloroplast genomes were downloaded as FASTA files, which were then assembled into one large multi-FASTA file. All sequences were adjusted to start with the sequence GGGCGAACGACGGGAATT…… (74 bp), which was found identical (monomorphic) among all investigated sequences. This sequence is a part of trnH-GUG gene, and is considered highly conservative among plants species [32].
Complete chloroplast genomes were aligned using MAFFT v 7 online server [33] with default settings. The aligned sequences were stored in a FASTA file and then converted to MEGA format using MEGA X [34]. The phylogeny was inferred in MEGA X by using the Maximum Likelihood method, with complete deletion option. General Time Reversible model (GTR+G+I) [35] was selected as the best substitution model based on Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) with MEGA X [34]. The initial tree for the heuristic search was obtained automatically by applying Neighbor-Join and BioNJ algorithm to a matrix of pairwise distances estimated using the Maximum Composite Likelihood (MCL) approach and then selecting the topology with a superior log likelihood value. Confidence of phylogenetic tree was tested based on 100 bootstraps. The tree was drawn to scale, with branch lengths measured in the number of substitutions per site.

4.3. Detailed Comparative Analysis of Four Chloroplast Genomes

We re-annotated the assemblies of S. aucuparia (MT610101), T. glaberrima (KY457242), A. edulis (MN061998) and C. alpina (MN061999) using GeSeq ChloroBox as mentioned in the previous paragraph, to avoid annotation errors. Synteny comparisons were performed with Mauve software [36]. Detailed lookup of the differences between the assemblies was carried out by aligning them with MAFFT [37], the results of this procedure were obtained with UniPro UGENE [38].

5. Conclusions

The newly assembled chloroplast genome of S. aucuparia is similar to the chloroplast genomes of other representatives of the Maleae tribe in terms of its size, structure and gene content. The phylogenetic tree based on complete chloroplast genomes of several taxa of Maleae indicated that Sorbus s.s. and the three species of interest belong to different clades; however, Aria, Chamaemespilus and Torminalis appeared to be closely related to each other. Detailed comparisons between S. aucuparia and the three species Aria edulis, Chamaemespilus alpina and Torminalis glaberrima, formerly considered as subgenera of Sorbus s.l., confirmed that they should be regarded as separate taxa.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants10112534/s1, Table S1. Genes annotated in the chloroplast genome of Sorbus aucuparia. Table S2. Comparison of chloroplast assemblies of S. aucuparia, T. glaberrima, A. edulis, and C. alpina. Table S3. List of names of species included in the phylogenetic analyses. Table S4. Genetic distances among 110 taxa inferred based on complete chloroplast genomes. Figure S1. Synteny comparisons of chloroplast genomes: Sorbus aucuparia (1), Torminalis glaberrima (2), Aria edulis (3) and Chamaemespilus alpina (4). The chloroplast genome of Sorbus aucuparia was used as the reference sequence. Within each of the alignments, local collinear blocks were marked by the same color and connected by lines. Figure S2. About 50-year-old individual of Sorbus aucuparia L. sampled in this study, located in Tryszczyn Forest Nursery, Poland (53.171761 N, 17.941530 E).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.U. and J.B.; methodology, B.U. and S.J.-W.; validation, J.B. and K.Ś.; formal analysis, S.J.-W. and K.Ś.; investigation, B.U., S.J.-W. and K.Ś.; resources, J.B.; data curation, J.B. and K.Ś.; writing—original draft preparation, B.U. and J.B.; writing—review and editing, J.B., B.U., S.J.-W. and K.Ś.; visualization, B.U. and S.J.-W.; supervision, J.B.; project administration, J.B.; funding acquisition, J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education under the program “Regional Initiative of Excellence” in 2019–2022 (Grant No. 008/RID/2018/19).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Newly generated DNA sequences were uploaded to NCBI Gene Bank under accession number MT610101.

Acknowledgments

We thank our lab team members: Ewa Sztupecka and Katarzyna Meyza for their outstanding job in the laboratory and perfect DNA isolations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ruggiero, M.A.; Gordon, D.P.; Orrell, T.M.; Bailly, N.; Bourgoin, T.; Brusca, R.C.; Cavalier-Smith, T.; Guiry, M.D.; Kirk, P.M. A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0119248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Potter, D.; Eriksson, T.; Evans, R.C.; Oh, S.; Smedmark, J.E.E.; Morgan, D.R.; Kerr, M.; Robertson, K.R.; Arsenault, M.; Dickinson, T.A.; et al. Phylogeny and classification of Rosaceae. Plant Syst. Evol. 2007, 266, 5–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhang, S.-D.; Jin, J.-J.; Chen, S.-Y.; Chase, M.W.; Soltis, D.E.; Li, H.-T.; Yang, J.-B.; Li, D.-Z.; Yi, T.-S. Diversification of Rosaceae since the Late Cretaceous based on plastid phylogenomics. New Phytol. 2017, 214, 1355–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Sun, J.; Shi, S.; Li, J.; Yu, J.; Wang, L.; Yang, X.; Guo, L.; Zhou, S. Phylogeny of Maleae (Rosaceae) Based on Multiple Chloroplast Regions: Implications to Genera Circumscription. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 7627191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Robertson, K.R.; Phipps, J.B.; Rohrer, J.R.; Smith, P.G. A Synopsis of Genera in Maloideae (Rosaceae). Syst. Bot. 1991, 16, 376–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sennikov, A.N.; Kurtto, A. A phylogenetic checklist of Sorbus sl (Rosaceae) in Europe. Memo. Soc. Pro Fauna Flora Fenn. 2017, 93, 1–78. [Google Scholar]
  7. Rushforth, K. The Whitebeam problem, and a solution. Phytologia 2018, 100, 222–246. [Google Scholar]
  8. Liu, B.-B.; Campbell, C.S.; Hong, D.-Y.; Wen, J. Phylogenetic relationships and chloroplast capture in the Amelanchier-Malacomeles-Peraphyllum clade (Maleae, Rosaceae): Evidence from chloroplast genome and nuclear ribosomal DNA data using genome skimming. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2020, 147, 106784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Campbell, C.S.; Evans, R.C.; Morgan, D.R.; Dickinson, T.A.; Arsenault, M.P. Phylogeny of subtribe Pyrinae (formerly the Maloideae, Rosaceae): Limited resolution of a complex evolutionary history. Plant Syst. Evol. 2007, 266, 119–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rieseberg, L.H.; Soltis, D. Phylogenetic consequences of cytoplasmic gene flow in plants. Evol. Trends Plants 1991, 5, 65–84. [Google Scholar]
  11. Stegemann, S.; Keuthe, M.; Greiner, S.; Bock, R. Horizontal transfer of chloroplast genomes between plant species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 2434–2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Lo, E.Y.Y.; Donoghue, M.J. Expanded phylogenetic and dating analyses of the apples and their relatives (Pyreae, Rosaceae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2012, 63, 230–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, X.; Rong, C.; Qin, L.; Mo, C.; Fan, L.; Yan, J.; Zhang, M. Complete Chloroplast Genome Sequence of Malus hupehensis: Genome Structure, Comparative Analysis, and Phylogenetic Relationships. Molecules 2018, 23, 2917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Ulaszewski, B.; Sandurska, E.; Sztupecka, E.; Burczyk, J. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of wild service tree Sorbus torminalis (L.) Crantz. Conserv. Genet. Resour. 2017, 9, 419–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Wang, Q.; Niu, Z.; Li, J.; Zhu, K.; Chen, X. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of the Chinese endemic species Sorbus setschwanensis (Rosaceae) and its phylogenetic analysis. Nord. J. Bot. 2020, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sun, J.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Xu, C.; Yuan, Q.; Guo, L.; Huang, L. Evolutionary and phylogenetic aspects of the chloroplast genome of Chaenomeles species. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 11466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, B.-B.; Hong, D.-Y.; Zhou, S.-L.; Xu, C.; Dong, W.-P.; Johnson, G.; Wen, J. Phylogenomic analyses of the Photinia complex support the recognition of a new genus Phippsiomeles and the resurrection of a redefined Stranvaesia in Maleae (Rosaceae). J. Syst. Evol. 2019, 57, 678–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Wang, D.; Shi, C.; Tang, H.; He, C.; Duan, A.; Gong, H. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of Docynia indica (Wall.) Decne. Mitochondrial DNA Part B 2019, 4, 3046–3048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sokołowska, J.; Fuchs, H.; Celiński, K. New Insight into Taxonomy of European Mountain Pines, Pinus mugo Complex, Based on Complete Chloroplast Genomes Sequencing. Plants 2021, 10, 1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alzahrani, D.A.; Albokhari, E.J.; Yaradua, S.S.; Abba, A. Comparative Analysis of Chloroplast Genomes of Four Medicinal Capparaceae Species: Genome Structures, Phylogenetic Relationships and Adaptive Evolution. Plants 2021, 10, 1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Cheon, S.-H.; Woo, M.-A.; Jo, S.; Kim, Y.-K.; Kim, K.-J. The Chloroplast Phylogenomics and Systematics of Zoysia (Poaceae). Plants 2021, 10, 1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liu, B.-B.; Liu, G.-N.; Hong, D.-Y.; Wen, J. Eriobotrya Belongs to Rhaphiolepis (Maleae, Rosaceae): Evidence From Chloroplast Genome and Nuclear Ribosomal DNA Data. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Holub, J. Reclassifications and new names in vascular plants 1. Preslia 1998, 70, 97–122. [Google Scholar]
  24. Li, M.; Ohi-Toma, T.; Gao, Y.-D.; Xu, B.; Zhu, Z.-M.; Ju, W.-B.; Gao, X.-F. Molecular phylogenetics and historical biogeography of Sorbus sensu stricto (Rosaceae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2017, 111, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Xiang, Y.; Huang, C.-H.; Hu, Y.; Wen, J.; Li, S.; Yi, T.; Chen, H.; Xiang, J.; Ma, H. Evolution of Rosaceae Fruit Types Based on Nuclear Phylogeny in the Context of Geological Times and Genome Duplication. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2017, 34, 262–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Meng, K.-K.; Chen, S.-F.; Xu, K.-W.; Zhou, R.-C.; Li, M.-W.; Dhamala, M.K.; Liao, W.-B.; Fan, Q. Phylogenomic analyses based on genome-skimming data reveal cyto-nuclear discordance in the evolutionary history of Cotoneaster (Rosaceae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2021, 158, 107083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, N.; Thomson, M.; Bodles, W.J.; Crawford, R.M.; Hunt, H.V.; Featherstone, A.W.; Pellicer, J.; Buggs, R.J. Genome sequence of dwarf birch (Betula nana) and cross-species RAD markers. Mol. Ecol. 2013, 22, 3098–3111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dierckxsens, N.; Mardulyn, P.; Smits, G. NOVOPlasty: De novo assembly of organelle genomes from whole genome data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017, 45, e18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Li, H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. arXiv 2013, arXiv:1303.3997v1. [Google Scholar]
  30. Milne, I.; Bayer, M.; Cardle, L.; Shaw, P.; Stephen, G.; Wright, F.; Marshall, D. Tablet--next generation sequence assembly visualization. Bioinformatics 2010, 26, 401–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Tillich, M.; Lehwark, P.; Pellizzer, T.; Ulbricht-Jones, E.S.; Fischer, A.; Bock, R.; Greiner, S. GeSeq-versatile and accurate annotation of organelle genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017, 45, W6–W11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Carelse, O.; Kempf, J.; Toussaint, J.L.; Chetsanga, C.J.; Mubumbila, M.V. The common bean chloroplast trnH (GUG) gene and its eukaryotic putative promoter elements. Nucleic Acids Res. 1992, 20, 5481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Katoh, K.; Rozewicki, J.; Yamada, K.D. MAFFT online service: Multiple sequence alignment, interactive sequence choice and visualization. Brief. Bioinform. 2017, 20, 1160–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Li, M.; Knyaz, C.; Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across Computing Platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 1547–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nei, M.; Kumar, S. Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  36. Darling, A.C.; Mau, B.; Blattner, F.R.; Perna, N.T. Mauve: Multiple alignment of conserved genomic sequence with rearrangements. Genome Res. 2004, 14, 1394–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Katoh, K.; Standley, D.M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30, 772–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Okonechnikov, K.; Golosova, O.; Fursov, M.; UGENE team. Unipro UGENE: A unified bioinformatics toolkit. Bioinformatics 2012, 28, 1166–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Plants 10 02534 g001 550
Figure 1. Chloroplast gene map of Sorbus aucuparia. Genes are grouped in categories highlighted in various colors. If a gene is transcribed clockwise it is shown on the inside of outer circle; if transcribed counter-clockwise it is shown on the outside of outer circle. The inner circle shows genome regions: LSC—large single-copy; SSC—small single-copy; IR(A/B)—inverted repeat.
Figure 1. Chloroplast gene map of Sorbus aucuparia. Genes are grouped in categories highlighted in various colors. If a gene is transcribed clockwise it is shown on the inside of outer circle; if transcribed counter-clockwise it is shown on the outside of outer circle. The inner circle shows genome regions: LSC—large single-copy; SSC—small single-copy; IR(A/B)—inverted repeat.
Plants 10 02534 g001
Plants 10 02534 g002 550
Figure 2. Phylogenetic tree of Maleae tribe reconstructed based on complete chloroplast genome of 110 taxa representing 36 genera inferred based on the Maximum Likelihood method. Numbers indicate the percentage of bootstraps supporting the clade.
Figure 2. Phylogenetic tree of Maleae tribe reconstructed based on complete chloroplast genome of 110 taxa representing 36 genera inferred based on the Maximum Likelihood method. Numbers indicate the percentage of bootstraps supporting the clade.
Plants 10 02534 g002
Table
Table 1. General statistics of non-matching nucleotides in the pairwise alignments of chloroplast genome assemblies of S. aucuparia, T. glaberrima, A. edulis and C. alpina.
Table 1. General statistics of non-matching nucleotides in the pairwise alignments of chloroplast genome assemblies of S. aucuparia, T. glaberrima, A. edulis and C. alpina.
S. aucuparia vs.T. glaberrima vs.A. edulis vs.
T. glaberrimaA. edulisC. alpinaA. edulisC. alpinaC. alpina
TypeTotal non-matching sites [bp]30042673278819231855560
Indels [bp]24342128224217061636486
(81.0%)(79.6%)(80.4%)(88.7%)(88.2%)(86.8%)
Substitutions [bp]57054554621721974
(19.0%)(20.4%(19.6%(11.3%)(11.8%)(13.2%)
Coding [bp]124107109606211
(4.1%)(4.0%)(3.9%)(2.5%)(2.8%)(1.8%)
LocationNon-coding [bp]28802566267918631793549
(95.9%)(96.0%)(96.1%)(97.5%)(97.2%)(98.2%)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ulaszewski, B.; Jankowska-Wróblewska, S.; Świło, K.; Burczyk, J. Phylogeny of Maleae (Rosaceae) Based on Complete Chloroplast Genomes Supports the Distinction of Aria, Chamaemespilus and Torminalis as Separate Genera, Different from Sorbus sp. Plants 2021, 10, 2534. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112534

AMA Style

Ulaszewski B, Jankowska-Wróblewska S, Świło K, Burczyk J. Phylogeny of Maleae (Rosaceae) Based on Complete Chloroplast Genomes Supports the Distinction of Aria, Chamaemespilus and Torminalis as Separate Genera, Different from Sorbus sp. Plants. 2021; 10(11):2534. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112534

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ulaszewski, Bartosz, Sandra Jankowska-Wróblewska, Katarzyna Świło, and Jarosław Burczyk. 2021. "Phylogeny of Maleae (Rosaceae) Based on Complete Chloroplast Genomes Supports the Distinction of Aria, Chamaemespilus and Torminalis as Separate Genera, Different from Sorbus sp." Plants 10, no. 11: 2534. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112534

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop