Comparative Chloroplast Genomes of<i> Sorghum</i> Species: Sequence Divergence and Phylogenetic Relationships

Song, Yun; Chen, Yan; Lv, Jizhou; Xu, Jin; Zhu, Shuifang; Li, MingFu

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5046958

BioMed Research International

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 | Article ID 5046958 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5046958

Comparative Chloroplast Genomes of Sorghum Species: Sequence Divergence and Phylogenetic Relationships

Yun Song,¹Yan Chen,¹Jizhou Lv,²Jin Xu,¹Shuifang Zhu,¹and MingFu Li¹

Academic Editor: Gerald J. Wyckoff

Received21 Nov 2018

Revised22 Jan 2019

Accepted26 Feb 2019

Published19 Mar 2019

Abstract

Sorghum comprises 31 species that exhibit considerable morphological and ecological diversity. The phylogenetic relationships among Sorghum species still remain unresolved due to lower information on the traditional DNA markers, which provides a limited resolution for identifying Sorghum species. In this study, we sequenced the complete chloroplast genomes of Sorghum sudanense and S. propinquum and analyzed the published chloroplast genomes of S. bicolor and S. timorense to retrieve valuable chloroplast molecular resources for Sorghum. The chloroplast genomes ranged in length from 140,629 to 140,755 bp, and their gene contents, gene orders, and GC contents were similar to those for other Poaceae species but were slightly different in the number of SSRs. Comparative analyses among the four chloroplast genomes revealed 651 variable sites, 137 indels, and nine small inversions. Four highly divergent DNA regions (rps16-trnQ, trnG-trnM, rbcL-psaI, and rps15-ndhF), which were suitable for phylogenetic and species identification, were detected in the Sorghum chloroplast genomes. A phylogenetic analysis strongly supported that Sorghum is a monophyletic group in the tribe Andropogoneae. Overall, the genomic resources in this study could provide potential molecular markers for phylogeny and species identification in Sorghum.

1. Introduction

Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench, sorghum, is the fifth in both production and planted area of cereal crops worldwide. It is extensively cultivated in marginal rainfall areas of the tropics and subtropics. The wild species of sorghum represent a potentially diverse source of germplasm for sorghum breeding programs. Sorghum comprises 31 species that exhibit considerable morphological and ecological diversity [1–3]. The genus Sorghum has been taxonomically classified into five subgenera or sections: Chaetosorghum, Heterosorghum, Parasorghum, Stiposorghum, and Sorghum [3]. Phylogenies based on a sequence analysis suggest that the Sorghum subgenera or section designations may not correspond to evolutionary relationships [1, 4, 5]. The phylogenetic relationships within subgenera or sections of Sorghum are not clear, and little is known about the phylogenetic relationships among the species.

To determine the phylogenetic relationships of Sorghum, molecular markers, including chloroplast genome regions (such as ndhF, psbZ-trnG, trnY-trnD, trnY-psbM, and trnT-trnL), and multiple nuclear genes (ITS, Pepc4, and GBSSI) have been analyzed [4–9]. However, many relationships within the genus remain unresolved because these markers are of low diversity and only provide a limited resolution for identifying closely related taxa. The development of more effective genetic resources is necessary to infer phylogenic relationships and to identify the species of Sorghum.

In recent years, an increasing number of researchers have focused on the chloroplast genome to develop genetic markers for phylogeny and DNA barcoding. In general, chloroplast genomes are in the range of 120-160 kb in length and encode 120 to 130 genes [10]. The chloroplast genome has a conserved quadripartite structure that consists of a large single-copy region (LSC) and a small single-copy region (SSC), which are separated by a pair of inverted repeats (IRs). Moreover, chloroplast genomes are inherited uniparentally (maternally in most angiosperms plants) at a slower evolutionary rate of change compared to nuclear genomes. For these reasons, the chloroplast genome is a potentially useful tool for phylogenetic studies, population genetics, phylogeography, and species identification. Mutations in the chloroplast genome are clustered as mutation hotspots, and this mutational dynamic has resulted in highly variable regions in the genome [11]. Those variable regions are used for phylogeny and species identification [12, 13].

In this study, we sequenced the complete chloroplast genomes of S. sudanense and S. propinquum which belong to subgenera of Sorghum and compared the resulting sequences with the published chloroplast genome of S. bicolor [14] and S. timorense (GenBank accession number: KF998272). The objective was to compare the chloroplast genomic structure and sequence variation within the genus Sorghum to retrieve valuable chloroplast molecular markers for species identification and to clarify the phylogenetic relationship of the tribe Andropogonodae.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Materials, DNA Extraction, and Sequencing

The plant materials of S. sudanense and S. propinquum were provided by the National Grass Germplasm Bank of China. Fresh leaves from each species were immediately dried with silica gel prior to DNA extraction. The total genomic DNA was isolated from each individual plant using the mCTAB extraction protocol [15] and was purified using the Wizard DNA CleanUp System (Promega, Madison, WI, USA). The total DNA quantity was evaluated by the value of the ratio of absorbance measurements at 260 nm and 280 nm (A260/A280) using NanoDrop 2000 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), whereas a visual assessment of the DNA size and integrity was performed using gel electrophoresis. We identified the materials using the ITS sequences. The ITS sequencing methods followed Ng'uni et al. [6] and the ITS sequences were submitted to GenBank (accession numbers: MK514589 and MK514590).

The chloroplast genomes of S. sudanense and S. propinquum were sequenced using the long-range PCR method reported by Dong et al. [10]. The PCR protocol was as follows: preheating at 98°C for 2 min, 40 cycles at 98°C for 10 s, annealing at 50°C for 30 s, and elongation at 72°C for 5 min, followed by a final extension at 72°C for 10 min. PCR amplification was performed in an Applied Biosystems Veriti™ 96-Well Thermal Cycler (Model #: 9902, made in Singapore).

PCR products were randomly fragmented into 400–600 bp using an ultrasonicator. An Illumina paired-end DNA library with a 500 bp insert size was constructed using a NEBNext® Ultra™DNA Library Prep Kit following the manufacturer’s instructions. The library was sequenced by the Illumina Hiseq X Ten platform double terminal sequencing method.

2.2. Assembly and Annotation

The paired-end reads were qualitatively assessed and were assembled using SPAdes 3.6.1 [16]. Chloroplast genome sequence contigs were selected from the initial assembly by performing a BLAST search using the Sorghum bicolor chloroplast genome sequence as a reference (GenBank accession number: EF115542). The selected contigs were assembled with Sequencher 5.4.5 (http://www.genecodes.com). The gaps and ambiguous sequences were manually adjusted after Sanger sequencing. PCR amplification and Sanger sequencing were performed to verify the four junction regions between the IRs and the LSC/SSC [17]. The chloroplast genome annotation was performed with Plann [18] using the Sorghum bicolor reference sequence from GenBank. The chloroplast genome map was drawn using Genome Vx software [19].

2.3. Simple Sequence Repeat (SSR) Analysis

Perl script MISA (http://pgrc.ipk-gatersleben.de/misa/) was used to detect the chloroplast simple sequence repeats in four chloroplast genome sequences of Sorghum. Its parameters were set as follows: the minimum numbers of repeats for mononucleotide, dinucleotides, trinucleotides, tetranucleotides, pentanucleotide, and hexanucleotides were 10, 5, 4, 3, 3, and 3, respectively. At the same time, the SSR of the IR, LSC, SSC, and coding regions, introns, and intergenic regions that correspond to different regions were analyzed.

2.4. Variation Analyses

All sequenced Sorghum chloroplast genomes were aligned using MIFFT v7 [20]. SNPs and the microstructure (indels and inversions) were checked in the four Sorghum chloroplast genomes. The SNPs were calculated using MEGA 6.0 [21]. Based on the aligned sequence matrix, the indel events were checked manually and were further divided into two categories: microsatellite-related indels (SSR-indel) and non-microsatellite-related indels (NR-indel).

Using the S. sudanense chloroplast genome sequence as the standard reference, the size, location, and evolutionary direction of the microstructure events were counted. The proposed secondary structures of the inverted regions were analyzed using mfold software [22].

2.5. Molecular Marker Development

A sliding window analysis was conducted to generate nucleotide diversity of the chloroplast genome using DnaSP v5.10 software [23]. The step size was set to 100 bp with a 600 bp window length.

2.6. Phylogenetic Reconstruction

To investigate the phylogenetic position of Sorghum, we used 41 complete chloroplast genomes (Table S1). Among them, 36 were from Andropogonodae, and five other species from different tribes (Garnotia tenella, Centotheca lappacea, Chasmanthium laxum, Gynerium sagittatum, and Pseudolasiacis leptolomoides) were used as the outgroups. Sequence alignments were carried out using MIFFT v7 [20] and then were adjusted manually using Se-Al 2.0. [24].

Phylogenetic analyses were conducted using the maximum likelihood (ML) and the Bayesian inference (BI) methods. The ML analysis was conducted using RAxML version 8.0.20 with 500 bootstrap replicates. The GTRGAMMA model was used in all of the ML analyses as is suggested in the RAxML manual.

MrBayes 3.2.2 [25] was used to perform a Bayesian inference analysis. The Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis was run for 2 × 5,000,000 generations. The average standard deviation of split frequencies remained below 0.01 after the fifty percent burn-in. The remaining trees were used to build a 50% majority-rule consensus tree.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Features of Sorghum Chloroplast Genomes

The plastomes of the four species contain no significant differences in their contents of genes and introns, the gene order in the four genomes is identical, and the sizes of LSC, SSC, and IR regions are very similar. The overall GC content of the chloroplast genome is 38.5%, which is consistent with reported Poaceae species [12, 26].

A total of 110 unique genes were identified in the Sorghum chloroplast genome, including 77 protein-coding genes, 29 tRNA genes, and 4 ribosomal RNA genes (Figure 1, Table 1 and Table S2). Notably, seven protein-coding genes (rps15, rps12, rps7, ndhB, rpl23, rpl2, and rps19) eight tRNA genes (trnA-UGC, trnH-GUG, trnI-CAU, trnI-GAU, trnL-CAA, trnN-GUU, trnR-ACG, and trnV-GAC), and all of the rRNA genes are duplicated in the IR regions, which is common in most Poaceae genomes. In the Sorghum chloroplast genome, there were 18 intron-containing genes. Among them, ten protein-coding genes (petB, petD, atpF, ndhB, ndhA, rpoC1, rps12, rps16, rpl16, and rpl2) and six tRNA genes have a single intron and two genes (clpP and ycf3) that contained two introns. The rps12 is a trans-splicing gene, with the 5′ end located in the LSC region and the duplicated 3′ end located in the IR region. The matK was located within the intron of trnK-UUU.

3.2. Simple Sequence Repeats

Simple sequence repeats (SSRs) are a type of 1–6 nucleotide unit tandem repeat sequence that is frequently observed in chloroplast genomes. These are important molecular markers for plant population genetics, evolution, and ecological studies because of their high diversity in copy numbers within species due to slipped strand mispairing during DNA replication on a single DNA strand [27, 28].

There were 38, 41, 41, and 45 simple sequence repeats in the chloroplast genomes of S. timorense, S. bicolor, S. sudanense, and S. propinquum, respectively (Figure 2, Table S3). The mononucleotide SSRs were the richest, with a proportion of 60.61%, followed by dinucleotide SSRs (14.55%), tetranucleotide SSRs (19.39%), and trinucleotide SSRs (4.24%). One hexanucleotide SSR was found in Sorghum sudanense and Sorghum bicolor. Pentanucleotide was not detected in the Sorghum chloroplast genomes. The majority of SSRs in all species were A/T mononucleotides. Chloroplast genome SSRs were composed of adenine or thymine repeats and rarely contained tandem guanine (G) or cytosine (C) repeats. The majority of SSRs were located in the LSC region (71.52). Furthermore, most of the SSRs were found in space regions (73.33%), followed by exon regions (16.97%) and intron regions (9.70%). SSRs in the chloroplast genome have been shown to be extremely useful for resolving genetic diversity between closely related taxa and, hence, increase the power of interspecific studies [29, 30], possibly in combination with other informative nuclear genome SSRs.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

3.3. Numbers and Pattern of SNP Mutations

In total, 651 single nucleotide substitutions (SNP) were detected in the four Sorghum chloroplast genomes, 518 of which were found in the LSC region, 18 in the IR region, and 97 in the SSC region. The number of SNP among the four Sorghum species was found to be 3 to 631. S. timorense exhibits higher divergence than other three species. S. sudanense and S. bicolor show the lowest sequence divergence.

The pattern of SNP mutation is shown in Figure 3. There were 345 transitions (Ts) and 306 transversions (Tv) and the Tv to Ts ratio was 1:0.89, which indicated a bias in favor of transitions. The most frequently occurring mutations were from A to G and from T to C substitutions (179), while from C to G and from G to C exhibited the lowest frequency (30). Despite the higher A+T contents in chloroplast genomes, AT to TA transversions among the four types of transversions were found to occur significantly less frequently (Figure 3). It is clear that there is a bias in the chloroplast genomes [31].

3.4. Indels

There were 137 indels in the chloroplast genome, which was identified among the four Sorghum chloroplast genomes (Tables S4 and S5), including 43 indels that are caused by SSR variations (SSR-indels) and 94 non-SSR-related indels (NR-indels). The majority of SSR-indels were related to A/T types SSRs (39 times). Only one dinucleotide SSR indel was identified, which is located in ndhF-rpl32. All of the SSR-indels were found in the noncoding regions of the LSC/SSC section.

The size of NR-indels ranged from 1 to 165 bp, with one bp long indel and 5 bp long indels being the most common (Table S5 and Figure 4). The largest one, found in rpoC with 165 bp length, was a deletion in the S. sudanense. The second longest, which was found in rps16-trnQ with 152 bp length, was an insertion in S. timorense. Finally, 46 insertion indels and 42 deletion indels were specific to S. timorense, one insertion indel and two deletion indels were specific to S. sudanense, and one insertion in rpoC1 intron was specific to S. propinquum. Most of the NR-indels were located in noncoding regions (81.91% in space and 15.96% in introns).

(a)

(b)

(c)

Indels were another important class of genetic variation compared with nucleotide substitutions. Several molecular processes are known to create indels. Polymerase slippage processes during DNA replication or repair can result in the addition or deletion of short spans of sequence that repeat at one side of the region flanking the indel [32], which mainly created SSR-indel type. SSR-indels in chloroplast genome were primarily found in AT-regions and often involve long stretches of repeats of a single nucleotide [33]. In the Sorghum chloroplast genome, most of the SSR-indels (90.70%) were A/T types. Hairpins or the stem-loop secondary structure and intramolecular recombination are thought to cause the majority of NR-indel mutations [33]. Different types of indels also show varying amounts of homoplasy. SSR-indels seem to be more prone to homoplasy between different species [28, 34]. In this study, NR-indels were often less homoplasious (Table S5). An increasing number of studies have shown that indel characters can be extremely useful for inferring relationships among more closely related taxa [30, 35, 36].

3.5. Small Inversions

Nine small inversions of 2 to 6 bp were identified in the Sorghum chloroplast genomes (Table 2). Eight inversions occurred in the LSC region, and one occurred in the SSC region. Most of the small inversions are in intergenic spacer regions, with only two exceptions. One is a 4 bp inversion within the coding region of ccsA, and the other is a 4 bp inversion in the rpl16 intron. All of the inversions and their inverted repeating flanking sequences can form stem-loop structures. The franking repeats are from 3 to 20 bp in length. All inversions occurred in S. timorense except the inversion in ccsA, which occurred in S. sudanense.

Many small inversions may have been generated by parallel or back mutation events during chloroplast genome evolution [37, 38]. However, recent studies suggest that, at least in some groups, some small inversions are valuable for a phylogenetic relationship [34]. All of the small inversions in the four Sorghum chloroplast genomes had phylogenetic information.

3.6. Divergent Hotspots

Divergent hotspots in the chloroplast genomes between different species at the genus level have provided abundant informative loci for systematic plant and DNA barcoding research [11, 39, 40]. Furthermore, a sliding window analysis using DnaSP detected highly variable regions in the Sorghum chloroplast genome. Nucleotide diversity values within 800 bp varied from 0 to 0.01167, and the average value of PI was 0.00965. The IR regions exhibited lower variability than the LSC and SSC regions (Figure 5). There were four mutational hotspots that showed remarkably higher PI values (>0.01), including three intergenic regions (rps16-trnQ, trnG-trnM, and rbcL-psaI) in the LSC and one intergenic region (rps15-ndhF) in the SSC from the chloroplast genomes.

Rps16-trnQ are highly variable in most plant groups and have been used in previous phylogenetic studies [11, 41–43]. In Veroniceae, trnG-trnM was also identified as a highly variable locus [44]. K Saltonstall [45] provided a set of primers to amplify the rbcL-psaI region in the grass. The rbcL-psaI has been used for phylogeographic inference of Phragmites australis [46]. rps15-ndhF combined with five other chloroplast markers has been used to successfully resolve relationships and investigate the biogeography in woody bamboos (Poaceae: Bambusoideae) [47]. These four mutation “hotspot” regions could provide adequate genetic information for Sorghum species identification and phylogeny analysis.

3.7. Phylogenetic Analysis

Chloroplast genome sequences have been successfully used for the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships among plant lineages [48–51]. Phylogenetic analyses of plant species using a small number of loci might frequently be insufficient to resolve evolutionary relationships, particularly at low taxonomic levels [52, 53]. Much of the previous phylogenetic work based on whole chloroplast genomes has been used to resolve difficult phylogenetic relationships among closely related species [40, 54].

To understand the evolution of Andropogoneae, an improved resolution of phylogenetic relationships has been achieved using the fully sequenced chloroplast genome sequences of 38 Andropogoneae species (Figures 6 and S1). The maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI) trees exhibited similar phylogenetic topologies. The phylogenetic analyses supported the monophyly of Andropogoneae with strong bootstrap support (BS) of 100% and posterior probabilities (PP) of 1.0 and contributed to clarifying intergeneric relationships (Figures 6 and S1). Arthraxon was well resolved as the first-branching lineage (BS=100; PP=1.0). The short branch lengths in some nodes of the tree suggested the rapid radiation evolutionary history in these clades. Skendzic et al. [55] used ITS and trnL–F to investigate the phylogeny of Andropogoneae; the result showed that most of Clayton and Renvoize’s [56] subtribes are not monophyletic. Using the chloroplast genome dataset, this study inferred the clear relationship of Andropogoneae, and this result is consistent with Skendzic et al. ’s.

Sorghum was a monophyletic sister to Pseudosorghum and Miscanthus (BS=100, PP=1.0). The four Sorghum species were grouped into two groups. S. sudanense, S. bicolor, and S. propinquum formed a group. S. sudanense, S. bicolor, and S. propinquum belong to the subgenus Sorghum which contain ten species. The phylogeny of subgenus Sorghum was unclear because of the low divergence among those species. Several studies used chloroplast markers (ndhF, psbZ-trnG, trnY-trnD, trnY-psbM, and trnT-trnL) and nuclear markers (ITS, Pepc4, and GBSSI) to infer the phylogeny of Sorghum [4–6, 8]. Those results supported that S. sudanense, S. bicolor, and S. propinquum formed a group. S. sudanense is believed to be segregate from a natural hybrid between S. bicolor and S. arundinaceum [57]. This is consistent with the present results, which place S. sudanense in close relationship with S. bicolor with 100% support (Figure 6).

Therefore, it is crucial to use more species to better understand Andropogoneae and Sorghum phylogeny and evolution. This study provides a basis for the future phylogenesis of Andropogoneae species.

Data Availability

The sequences of Sorghum propinquum and Sorghum sudanense chloroplast genome are deposited in the GenBank of NCBI under Accession nos. MH926027 and MH926028. The ITS sequences of S. sudanense and S. propinquum were available in GenBank database under Accession nos. MK514589 and MK514590.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Authors’ Contributions

Yun Song and Jizhou Lv designed the experiment and drafted and made revisions to the manuscript. Yan Chen collected samples and performed the experiment. Yun Song and Jin Xu analyzed the data. MingFu Li and Shuifang Zhu contributed reagents and analysis tools. All of the authors have approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2017YFF0210302 and 2017YFF0210300), the Specialized Funds for National Biosafety DNA Barcode Technology Support Platform and Improvement of Agricultural Product Quality and Safety Inspection Technology System from State Administration for Market Regulation.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary 1 . Table S1: accession numbers and relevant references of the sampled Andropogonodae chloroplast genome sequences obtained from GenBank in this study.

Supplementary 2 . Table S2: list of genes present in the Sorghum chloroplast genome.

Supplementary 3 . Table S3: SSR loci identified in the four Sorghum chloroplast genomes. Positions, locations, types, and polymorphisms are shown.

Supplementary 4 . Table S4: polymorphic SSR-indels identified in the analyzed material. For each species, the number of repeats for each SSR is provided.

Supplementary 5 . Table S5: polymorphic NR-indels identified in the analyzed material. Indel events are reported for each of the four Sorghum species.

Supplementary 6 . Figure S1: phylogenetic relationships of the Andropogoneae species constructed from the complete chloroplast genome sequences using Bayesian inference (BI).

References

S. L. Dillon, P. K. Lawrence, R. J. Henry, L. Ross, H. J. Price, and J. S. Johnston, “Sorghum laxiflorum and S. macrospermum, the Australian native species most closely related to the cultivated S. bicolor based on ITS1 and ndhF sequence analysis of 25 Sorghum species,” Plant Systematics and Evolution, vol. 249, no. 3-4, pp. 233–246, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Lazarides, J. B. Hacker, and M. H. Andrew, “Taxonomy, cytology and ecology of indigenous Australian sorghums (Sorghum Moench: Andropogoneae: Poaceae),” Australian Systematic Botany, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 591–635, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. D. Garber, Cytotaxonomic Studies in The Genus Sorghum, vol. 23, Univiversity of California Publications in Botany, 1950.
S. L. Dillon, P. K. Lawrence, and R. J. Henry, “The use of ribosomal ITS to determine phylogenetic relationships within Sorghum,” Plant Systematics and Evolution, vol. 230, no. 1-2, pp. 97–110, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Liu, H. Liu, J. Wen, and P. M. Peterson, “Infrageneric phylogeny and temporal divergence of Sorghum (Andropogoneae, Poaceae) based on low-copy nuclear and plastid sequences,” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 8, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Ng'Uni, M. Geleta, M. Fatih, and T. Bryngelsson, “Phylogenetic analysis of the genus Sorghum based on combined sequence data from cpDNA regions and ITS generate well-supported trees with two major lineages,” Annals of Botany, vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 471–480, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. J. Price, S. L. Dillon, G. Hodnett, W. L. Rooney, L. Ross, and J. S. Johnston, “Genome evolution in the genus Sorghum (Poaceae),” Annals of Botany, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 219–227, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Spangler, B. Zaitchik, E. Russo, and E. Kellogg, “Andropogoneae evolution and generic limits in Sorghum (Poaceae) using ndhF sequences,” Systematic Botany, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 267–281, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Sun, D. Z. Skinner, G. H. Liang, and S. H. Hulbert, “Phylogenetic analysis of Sorghum and related taxa using internal transcribed spacers of nuclear ribosomal DNA,” Theoretical and Applied Genetics, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 26–32, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Dong, C. Xu, T. Cheng, K. Lin, and S. Zhou, “Sequencing angiosperm plastid genomes made easy: A complete set of universal primers and a case study on the phylogeny of saxifragales,” Genome Biology and Evolution, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 989–997, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Dong, J. Liu, J. Yu, L. Wang, S. Zhou, and A. Moustafa, “Highly Variable Chloroplast Markers for Evaluating Plant Phylogeny at Low Taxonomic Levels and for DNA Barcoding,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 4, p. e35071, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Song, Y. Chen, J. Lv et al., “Development of chloroplast genomic resources for oryza species discrimination,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 8, article 1854, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Song, S. Wang, Y. Ding et al., “Chloroplast genomic resource of paris for species discrimination,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, article, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Saski, S.-B. Lee, S. Fjellheim et al., “Complete chloroplast genome sequences of Hordeum vulgare, Sorghum bicolor and Agrostis stolonifera, and comparative analyses with other grass genomes,” Theoretical and Applied Genetics, vol. 115, no. 4, pp. 571–590, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Jinlu, W. Shuo, Y. Jing, W. Ling, and Z. Shiliang, “A Modified CTAB protocol for plant DNA extraction,” Chinese Bulletin of Botany, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 72–78, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bankevich, S. Nurk, and D. Antipov, “SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing,” Journal of Computational Biology, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 455–477, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar | MathSciNet
J. Cao, D. Jiang, Z. Zhao et al., “Development of chloroplast genomic resources in Chinese yam (Dioscorea polystachya),” BioMed Research International, vol. 2018, Article ID 6293847, 11 pages, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. I. Huang and Q. C. B. Cronk, “Plann: a command-line application for annotating plastome sequences,” Applications in Plant Sciences, vol. 3, no. 8, Article ID 1500026, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. C. Conant and K. H. Wolfe, “GenomeVx: Simple web-based creation of editable circular chromosome maps,” Bioinformatics, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 861-862, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Katoh and D. M. Standley, “MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 772–780, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Tamura, G. Stecher, D. Peterson, A. Filipski, and S. Kumar, “MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 2725–2729, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Zuker, “Mfold web server for nucleic acid folding and hybridization prediction,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 31, no. 13, pp. 3406–3415, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Librado and J. Rozas, “DnaSP v5: a software for comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data,” Bioinformatics, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 1451-1452, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Se-Al: sequence alignment editor. version 2.0.
F. Ronquist, M. Teslenko, P. van der Mark et al., “Mrbayes 3.2: efficient bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space,” Systematic Biology, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 539–542, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Lu, Y. Zhao, R. Han, L. Wang, and P. Qin, “The complete chloroplast genome sequence of the Purple Feathergrass Stipa purpurea (Poales: Poaceae),” Conservation Genetics Resources, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 101–104, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Ochoterena, “Homology in coding and non-coding DNA sequences: A parsimony perspective,” Plant Systematics and Evolution, vol. 282, no. 3-4, pp. 151–168, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. G. Gandhi, P. Awasthi, and Y. S. Bedi, “Analysis of SSR dynamics in chloroplast genomes of Brassicaceae family,” Bioinformation, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 16–20, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. K. Ingvarsson, S. Ribstein, and D. R. Taylor, “Molecular evolution of insertions and deletion in the chloroplast genome of silene,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 1737–1740, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Löhne and T. Borsch, “Molecular evolution and phylogenetic utility of the petD group II intron: A case study in basal angiosperms,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 317–332, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Jiang, Z. Zhao, T. Zhang et al., “The chloroplast genome sequence of Scutellaria baicalensis provides insight into intraspecific and interspecific chloroplast genome diversity in Scutellaria,” Gene, vol. 8, no. 9, article no. 227, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Levinson and G. A. Gutman, “Slipped-strand mispairing: a major mechanism for DNA sequence evolution,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 203–221, 1987.
View at: Google Scholar
S. A. Kelchner, “The evolution of non-coding chloroplast DNA and its application in plant systematics,” Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 482–498, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. W. Graham, P. A. Reeves, A. C. E. Burns, and R. G. Olmstead, “Microstructural changes in noncoding chloroplast DNA: Interpretation, evolution, and utility of indels and inversions in basal angiosperm phylogenetic inference,” International Journal of Plant Sciences, vol. 161, no. 6, pp. S83–S96, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Liu, J. Provan, L.-M. Gao, and D.-Z. Li, “Sampling strategy and potential utility of indels for DNA barcoding of closely related plant species: A case study in Taxus,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 8740–8751, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. M. Moghaddam, Q. Song, S. Mamidi et al., “Developing market class specific InDel markers from next generation sequence data in Phaseolus vulgaris L,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 5, no. MAY, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
K.-J. Kim and H.-L. Lee, “Widespread occurrence of small inversions in the chloroplast genomes of land plants,” Molecules and Cells, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 104–113, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
S. A. Catalano, B. O. Saidman, and J. C. Vilardi, “Evolution of small inversions in chloroplast genome: A case study from a recurrent inversion in angiosperms,” Cladistics, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 93–104, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Xu, W. Dong, W. Li et al., “Comparative analysis of six lagerstroemia complete chloroplast genomes,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 8, article no. 15, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Dong, C. Xu, W. Li et al., “Phylogenetic Resolution in Juglans Based on Complete Chloroplast Genomes and Nuclear DNA Sequences,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 8, no. 1148, article 1148, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Shaw, E. B. Lickey, E. E. Schilling, and R. L. Small, “Comparison of whole chloroplast genome sequences to choose noncoding regions for phylogenetic studies in angiosperms: The Tortoise and the hare III,” American Journal of Botany, vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 275–288, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Wallander and V. A. Albert, “Phylogeny and classification of Oleaceae based on rps16 and trnL-F sequence data,” American Journal of Botany, vol. 87, no. 12, pp. 1827–1841, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. E. Smedmark, C. Rydin, S. G. Razafimandimbison, S. A. Khan, S. Liede-Schumann, and B. Bremer, “A phylogeny of Urophylleae (Rubiaceae) based on rps16 intron data,” TAXON, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 24–32, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
K. S. Choi, M. G. Chung, and S. J. Park, “The complete chloroplast genome sequences of three veroniceae species (Plantaginaceae): Comparative analysis and highly divergent regions,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 7, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
K. Saltonstall, “A set of primers for amplification of noncoding regions of chloroplast DNA in the grasses,” Molecular Ecology Resources (Formerly known as Molecular Ecology Notes), vol. 1, no. 1-2, pp. 76–78, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Vachon and J. R. Freeland, “Phylogeographic inferences from chloroplast DNA: Quantifying the effects of mutations in repetitive and non-repetitive sequences,” Molecular Ecology Resources, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 279–285, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X.-Z. Zhang, C.-X. Zeng, P.-F. Ma et al., “Multi-locus plastid phylogenetic biogeography supports the Asian hypothesis of the temperate woody bamboos (Poaceae: Bambusoideae),” Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, vol. 96, pp. 118–129, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. V. Burke, C.-S. Lin, W. P. Wysocki, L. G. Clark, and M. R. Duvall, “Phylogenomics and plastome evolution of tropical forest grasses (Leptaspis, streptochaeta: Poaceae),” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 7, no. 1993, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
A. J. Welch, K. Collins, A. Ratan, D. I. Drautz-Moses, S. C. Schuster, and C. Lindqvist, “The quest to resolve recent radiations: Plastid phylogenomics of extinct and endangered Hawaiian endemic mints (Lamiaceae),” Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, vol. 99, pp. 16–33, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J.-H. Xue, W.-P. Dong, T. Cheng, and S.-L. Zhou, “Nelumbonaceae: Systematic position and species diversification revealed by the complete chloroplast genome,” Journal of Systematics and Evolution, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 477–487, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Dong, C. Xu, P. Wu et al., “Resolving the systematic positions of enigmatic taxa: Manipulating the chloroplast genome data of Saxifragales,” Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, vol. 126, pp. 321–330, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. C. Majure, R. Puente, M. Patrick Griffith, W. S. Judd, P. S. Soltis, and D. E. Soltis, “Phylogeny of Opuntia s.s. (Cactaceae): Clade delineation, geographic origins, reticulate evolution,” American Journal of Botany, vol. 99, no. 5, pp. 847–864, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. W. Hilu and L. A. Alice, “A phylogeny of Chloridoideae (Poaceae) based on matK sequences,” Systematic Botany, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 386–405, 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Carbonell-Caballero, R. Alonso, V. Ibañez, J. Terol, M. Talon, and J. Dopazo, “A phylogenetic analysis of 34 chloroplast genomes elucidates the relationships between wild and domestic species within the genus citrus,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 2015–2035, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. M. Skendzic, J. T. Columbus, and R. Cerros-Tlatilpa, “Phylogenetics of andropogoneae (Poaceae: Panicoideae) based on nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer and chloroplast trnL–F sequences,” Aliso, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 530–544, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Clayton and S. Renvoize, “Genera graminum: grasses of the world,” Kew Bulletin, vol. 13, pp. 1–389, 1986.
View at: Google Scholar
J. M. de Wet, “Systematics and evolution of sorghum sect sorghum (Gramineae),” American Journal of Botany, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 477–484, 1978.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2019 Yun Song et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

2413

Downloads

1594

Citations