4.6 Article

Deep Ancestral Introgression Shapes Evolutionary History of Dragonflies and Damselflies

期刊

SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY
卷 71, 期 3, 页码 526-546

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syab063

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [DEB-1265714]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R00HG008696, R35GM138286]
  3. French Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-19-CE45-0012]
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-19-CE45-0012] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introgression is an important biological process affecting the evolution of various taxonomic levels within Odonata, with evidence of deep inter-superfamilial ancestral introgression. Morphologically intermediate species of Anisozygoptera experienced high levels of introgression likely from zygopteran genomes, highlighting the pervasive nature of introgression in dragonflies and damselflies.
Introgression is an important biological process affecting at least 10% of the extant species in the animal kingdom. Introgression significantly impacts inference of phylogenetic species relationships where a strictly binary tree model cannot adequately explain reticulate net-like species relationships. Here, we use phylogenomic approaches to understand patterns of introgression along the evolutionary history of a unique, nonmodel insect system: dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata). We demonstrate that introgression is a pervasive evolutionary force across various taxonomic levels within Odonata. In particular, we show that the morphologically intermediate species of Anisozygoptera (one of the three primary suborders within Odonata besides Zygoptera and Anisoptera), which retain phenotypic characteristics of the other two suborders, experienced high levels of introgression likely coming from zygopteran genomes. Additionally, we find evidence for multiple cases of deep inter-superfamilial ancestral introgression. [Gene flow; Odonata; phylogenomics; reticulate evolution.]

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

4.6
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