4.5 Article

DIFFERENT GYMNOSPERM OUTGROUPS HAVE (MOSTLY) CONGRUENT SIGNAL REGARDING THE ROOT OF FLOWERING PLANT PHYLOGENY

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 96, 期 1, 页码 216-227

出版社

BOTANICAL SOC AMER INC
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.0800320

关键词

Amborella; angiosperm phylogeny; gymnosperm outgroups; Nymphaeales; rate classes; root cost profiles; taxonomic sampling; tree rooting; Trithuria; water lilies

资金

  1. University of British Columbia Graduate Fellowship
  2. NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined multiple plastid genes from a diversity of gymnosperm lineages to explore the consistency of signal among different outgroups for rooting flowering plant phylogeny. For maximum parsimony (MP), most outgroups attach on a branch of the underlying ingroup tree that leads to Amborella. Maximum likelihood (ML) analyses either root angiosperms on a nearby branch or find split support for these neighboring root placements, depending on the outgroup. The inclusion of two species of Hydatellaceae, recently recognized as an ancient line of angiosperms, does not aid in inference of the root. Cost profiles for placing the root in suboptimal locations are highly correlated across most outgroup comparisons, even comparing MP and ML profiles. Those for Gnetales are the most deviant of all those considered. This divergent outgroup either attaches on a long eudicot branch with moderate bootstrap support in MP analyses or supports no particular root location in ML analysis. Removing the most rapidly evolving sites in rate classifications based on two divergent angiosperm root placements with Gnetales yields strongly conflicting root placements in MP analysis, despite substantial overlap in the estimated sets of conservative sites. However, the generally high consistency in rooting signal among distantly related gymnosperm clades suggests that the long branch connecting angiosperms to their extant relatives may not interfere substantially with inference of the angiosperm root.

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

4.5
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