Chloroplast genome phylogenetics: why we need independent approaches to plant molecular evolution.

The traditional approach to plant molecular phylogenetics involves amplifying, sequencing and analyzing one or a few genes from many species and is conducive to broad taxon sampling. An independent approach involves chloroplast genome sequencing, providing much larger amounts of data per taxon but for a smaller number of species. In principle, the two strategies can inform each other but in practice their results sometimes conflict for reasons that are currently debated. An Opinion article published in the October 2004 issue of Trends in Plant Science cautioned against the pursuit of genome-based phylogenies. Here, we provide a different perspective on issues at the heart of the current debate and defend the use of chloroplast genome phylogenetics for crucial species because it provides an independent test of hypotheses generated by the traditional approach.

[1]  W. Martin,et al.  Evolutionary analysis of 58 proteins encoded in six completely sequenced chloroplast genomes: Revised molecular estimates of two seed plant divergence times , 1997, Plant Systematics and Evolution.

[2]  M. Gouy,et al.  Inferring pattern and process: maximum-likelihood implementation of a nonhomogeneous model of DNA sequence evolution for phylogenetic analysis. , 1998, Molecular biology and evolution.

[3]  David Penny,et al.  Four new mitochondrial genomes and the increased stability of evolutionary trees of mammals from improved taxon sampling. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

[4]  Mikael Thollesson,et al.  LDDist: a Perl module for calculating LogDet pair-wise distances for protein and nucleotide sequences , 2004, Bioinform..

[5]  M. Steel,et al.  Recovering evolutionary trees under a more realistic model of sequence evolution. , 1994, Molecular biology and evolution.

[6]  S. Ho,et al.  Tracing the decay of the historical signal in biological sequence data. , 2004, Systematic biology.

[7]  R. Olmstead,et al.  Utility of 17 chloroplast genes for inferring the phylogeny of the basal angiosperms. , 2000, American journal of botany.

[8]  James Lyons-Weiler,et al.  Independent and combined analyses of sequences from all three genomic compartments converge on the root of flowering plant phylogeny. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  M. Steel,et al.  How molecules evolve in eubacteria. , 2000, Molecular biology and evolution.

[10]  M. Donoghue,et al.  The root of angiosperm phylogeny inferred from duplicate phytochrome genes. , 1999, Science.

[11]  J. G. Burleigh,et al.  Prospects for Building the Tree of Life from Large Sequence Databases , 2004, Science.

[12]  M. Steel,et al.  A covariotide model explains apparent phylogenetic structure of oxygenic photosynthetic lineages. , 1998, Molecular biology and evolution.

[13]  Pamela S Soltis,et al.  Genome-scale data, angiosperm relationships, and "ending incongruence": a cautionary tale in phylogenetics. , 2004, Trends in plant science.

[14]  D. Penny,et al.  Spectral Analysis, Systematic Bias, and the Evolution of Chloroplasts , 1999 .

[15]  J. G. Burleigh,et al.  Covarion structure in plastid genome evolution: a new statistical test. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.

[16]  Mark W. Chase,et al.  The earliest angiosperms: evidence from mitochondrial, plastid and nuclear genomes , 1999, Nature.

[17]  Daniel H. Huson,et al.  SplitsTree: analyzing and visualizing evolutionary data , 1998, Bioinform..

[18]  J. Palmer,et al.  Massive horizontal transfer of mitochondrial genes from diverse land plant donors to the basal angiosperm Amborella. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  J. Badger,et al.  Probabilistic Analysis Indicates Discordant Gene Trees in Chloroplast Evolution , 2003, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[20]  D. Penny,et al.  Genome-scale phylogeny and the detection of systematic biases. , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.

[21]  D. Penny,et al.  Comment on "Hexapod Origins: Monophyletic or Paraphyletic?" , 2003, Science.

[22]  W. Fitch,et al.  An improved method for determining codon variability in a gene and its application to the rate of fixation of mutations in evolution , 1970, Biochemical Genetics.

[23]  W. Brown,et al.  Structural biology and phylogenetic estimation , 1997, Nature.

[24]  Bryan Kolaczkowski,et al.  Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous , 2004, Nature.

[25]  Edward Susko,et al.  Covarion shifts cause a long-branch attraction artifact that unites microsporidia and archaebacteria in EF-1alpha phylogenies. , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.

[26]  S. Wölfl,et al.  The chloroplast genome of Nymphaea alba: whole-genome analyses and the problem of identifying the most basal angiosperm. , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.

[27]  Y. Qiu,et al.  Was the ANITA rooting of the angiosperm phylogeny affected by long-branch attraction? Amborella, Nymphaeales, Illiciales, Trimeniaceae, and Austrobaileya. , 2001, Molecular biology and evolution.

[28]  J. Palmer,et al.  Multigene analyses identify the three earliest lineages of extant flowering plants , 1999, Current Biology.

[29]  M. Hasegawa,et al.  Gene transfer to the nucleus and the evolution of chloroplasts , 1998, Nature.

[30]  M. Nei,et al.  The neighbor-joining method , 1987 .

[31]  J. Boore,et al.  Hexapod Origins: Monophyletic or Paraphyletic? , 2003, Science.

[32]  J. Lake,et al.  Reconstructing evolutionary trees from DNA and protein sequences: paralinear distances. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  N. Saitou,et al.  The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. , 1987, Molecular biology and evolution.

[34]  H. Philippe,et al.  Heterotachy and Functional Shift in Protein Evolution , 2003, IUBMB life.

[35]  M Steel,et al.  Invariable sites models and their use in phylogeny reconstruction. , 2000, Systematic biology.

[36]  T. Embley,et al.  Trichomonas hydrogenosomes contain the NADH dehydrogenase module of mitochondrial complex I , 2004, Nature.

[37]  Sudhir Kumar,et al.  Incomplete taxon sampling is not a problem for phylogenetic inference , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  V. Moulton,et al.  Neighbor-net: an agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.

[39]  V. Goremykin,et al.  Analysis of the Amborella trichopoda chloroplast genome sequence suggests that amborella is not a basal angiosperm. , 2003, Molecular biology and evolution.

[40]  J. Palmer,et al.  Long branch attraction, taxon sampling, and the earliest angiosperms: Amborella or monocots? , 2004, BMC Evolutionary Biology.