4.1 Article

Complete mitochondrial genomes reveal phylogeny relationship and evolutionary history of the family Felidae

Journal

GENETICS AND MOLECULAR RESEARCH
Volume 12, Issue 3, Pages 3256-3262

Publisher

FUNPEC-EDITORA
DOI: 10.4238/2013.September.3.1

Keywords

Felidae; Mitochondrial genome; Bayesian method; Evolutionary analysis

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30870309]
  2. Outstanding Ph.D. Dissertation Training Plan of the Northeast Forestry University [OPTP10-NEFU]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many mitochondrial DNA sequences are used to estimate phylogenetic relationships among animal taxa and perform molecular phylogenetic evolution analysis. With the continuous development of sequencing technology, numerous mitochondrial sequences have been released in public databases, especially complete mitochondrial DNA sequences. Using multiple sequences is better than using single sequences for phylogenetic analysis of animals because multiple sequences have sufficient information for evolutionary process reconstruction. Therefore, we performed phylogenetic analyses of 14 species of Felidae based on complete mitochondrial genome sequences, with Canis familiaris as an outgroup, using neighbor joining, maximum likelihood, maximum parsimony, and Bayesian inference methods. The consensus phylogenetic trees supported the monophyly of Felidae, and the family could be divided into 2 subfamilies, Felinae and Pantherinae. The genus Panthera and species tigris were also studied in detail. Meanwhile, the divergence of this family was estimated by phylogenetic analysis using the Bayesian method with a relaxed molecular clock, and the results shown were consistent with previous studies. In summary, the evolution of Felidae was reconstructed by phylogenetic analysis based on mitochondrial genome sequences. The described method may be broadly applicable for phylogenetic analyses of anima taxa.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available