4.7 Article

Relationships among pest flour beetles of the genus Tribolium (Tenebrionidae) inferred from multiple molecular markers

期刊

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 127-141

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2007.08.017

关键词

Tribolium; Aphanotus; Bayesian phylogenetics; data partitioning; RNA doublet modeling

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [F32GM074365] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [F32 GM074365-03, 5F32GM074365-02, F32 GM074365] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Model species often provide initial hypotheses and tools for studies of development, genetics and molecular evolution in closely related species. Flour beetles of the genus Tribolium Macleay (1825) are one group with potential for such comparative Studies. Tribolium castaneum (Herbst 1797) is an increasingly useful developmental genetic system. The convenience with which congeneric and other species of tenebrionid flour beetles can be reared in the laboratory makes this group attractive for comparative studies on a small phylogenetic scale. Here we present the results of phylogenetic analyses of relationships among the major pest species of Tribolium based on two mitochondrial and three nuclear markers (cytochrome oxidase 1, 16S ribosomal DNA, wingless, 28S ribosomal DNA and histone H3). The utility of partitioning the dataset in a manner informed by biological structure and function is demonstrated by comparing various partitioning strategies. In parsimony and partitioned Bayesian analyses of the combined dataset, the castaneum and confusum species groups are supported as monophyletic and as each other's closest relatives. However, a sister group relationship between this clade and Tribolium brevicornis (Leconte 1859) is not supported. The inferred phylogeny provides an evolutionary framework for comparative studies using flour beetles. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据