No abstract

Various factors, including taxon density, sampling error, convergence, and heterogeneity of evolutionary rates, can potentially lead to incongruence between phylogenetic trees based on different genomes. Particularly at the generic level and below, chloroplast capture resulting from hybridization may distort organismal relationships in phylogenetic analyses based on the chloroplast genome, or genes included therein. However, the extent of such discord between chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) trees and those trees based on nuclear genes has rarely been assessed. We therefore used sequences of the internal transcribed spacer regions (ITS-1 and ITS-2) of nuclear ribosomal DNA (rDNA) to reconstruct phylogenetic relationships among members of the Heuchera group of genera (Saxifragaceae). The Heuchera group presents an important model for the analysis of chloroplast capture and its impact on phylogenetic reconstruction because hybridization is well documented within genera (e.g., Heuchera), and intergeneric hybrids involving six of the nine genera have been reported. An earlier study provided a well-resolved phylogenetic hypothesis for the Heuchera group based on cpDNA restriction-site variation. However, trees based on ITS sequences are discordant with the cpDNA-based tree. Evidence from both morphology and nuclear-encoded allozymes is consistent with the ITS trees, rather than the cpDNA tree, and several points of phylogenetic discord can clearly be attributed to chloroplast capture. Comparison of the organellar and ITS trees also raises the strong likelihood that ancient events of chloroplast capture occurred between lineages during the early diversification of the Heuchera group. Thus, despite the many advantages and widespread use of cpDNA data in phylogeny reconstruction, comparison of relationships based on cpDNA and ITS sequences for the Heuchera group underscores the need for caution in the use of organellar variation for retrieving phylogeny at lower taxonomic levels, particularly in groups noted for hybridization.

The leaves of higher plants develop distinct cell types along their adaxial-abaxial (dorsal-ventral) axes. Interaction between leaf primordium cells with adaxial and abaxial identities is necessary for lateral growth of the developing leaf blade. We show that the growth and asymmetry of leaves in Antirrhinum majus involves the related YABBY transcription factors GRAMINIFOLIA (GRAM) and PROLONGATA (PROL). GRAM is expressed in abaxial margins of organ primordia where it promotes lateral growth and abaxial cell fate. GRAM, however, is not needed for abaxial fate in the absence of adaxial cell specification, suggesting that it promotes abaxial fate by excluding adaxial identity. Although GRAM expression is abaxially restricted, it functions redundantly with its abaxially expressed paralogue, PROL, and with the ubiquitously expressed PHANTASTICA gene to promote adaxial identity via intercellular signalling. This non cell-autonomous behaviour is consistent with the ability of GRAM in only the abaxial most cell layer to direct normal development of more adaxial cells. The contrasting roles of GRAM in promoting and inhibiting adaxial identity might serve to reinforce and maintain the distinction between adaxial and abaxial domains in the growing leaf primordium.

18S ribosomal RNA genes are the most widely used nuclear sequences for phylogeny reconstruction at higher taxonomic levels in plants. However, due to a conservative rate of evolution, 18S rDNA alone sometimes provides too few phylogenetically informative characters to resolve relationships adequately. Previous studies using partial sequences have suggested the potential of 26S or large-subunit (LSU) rDNA for phylogeny retrieval at taxonomic levels comparable to those investigated with 18S rDNA. Here we explore the patterns of molecular evolution of entire 26S rDNA sequences and their impact on phylogeny retrieval. We present a protocol for PCR amplification and sequencing of entire (approximately 3.4 kb) 26S rDNA sequences as single amplicons, as well as primers that can be used for amplification and sequencing. These primers proved useful in angiosperms and Gnetales and likely have broader applicability. With these protocols and primers, entire 26S rDNA sequences were generated for a diverse array of 15 seed plants, including basal eudicots, monocots, and higher eudicots, plus two representatives of Gnetales. Comparisons of sequence dissimilarity indicate that expansion segments (or divergence domains) evolve 6.4 to 10.2 times as fast as conserved core regions of 26S rDNA sequences in plants. Additional comparisons indicate that 26S rDNA evolves 1.6 to 2.2 times as fast as and provides 3.3 times as many phylogenetically informative characters as 18S rDNA; compared to the chloroplast gene rbcL, 26S rDNA evolves at 0.44 to 1.0 times its rate and provides 2.0 times as many phylogenetically informative characters. Expansion segment sequences analyzed here evolve 1.2 to 3.0 times faster than rbcL, providing 1.5 times the number of informative characters. Plant expansion segments have a pattern of evolution distinct from that found in animals, exhibiting less cryptic sequence simplicity, a lower frequency of insertion and deletion, and greater phylogenetic potential.

Recent work on species with simple leaves suggests that the juxtaposition of abaxial (lower) and adaxial (upper) cell fates (dorsiventrality) in leaf primordia is necessary for lamina outgrowth. However, how leaf dorsiventral symmetry affects leaflet formation in species with compound leaves is largely unknown. In four non-allelic dorsiventrality-defective mutants in tomato, wiry, wiry3, wiry4 and wiry6, partial or complete loss of ab-adaxiality was observed in leaves as well as in lateral organs in the flower, and the number of leaflets in leaves was reduced significantly. Morphological analyses and expression patterns of molecular markers for ab-adaxiality [LePHANTASTICA (LePHAN) and LeYABBY B (LeYAB B)] indicated that ab-adaxial cell fates were altered in mutant leaves. Reduction in expression of both LeT6 (a tomato KNOX gene) and LePHAN during post-primordial leaf development was correlated with a reduction in leaflet formation in the wiry mutants. LePHAN expression in LeT6 overexpression mutants suggests that LeT6 is a negative regulator of LePHAN. KNOX expression is known to be correlated with leaflet formation and we show that LeT6 requires LePHAN activity to form leaflets. These phenotypes and gene expression patterns suggest that the abaxial and adaxial domains of leaf primordia are important for leaflet primordia formation, and thus also important for compound leaf development. Furthermore, the regulatory relationship between LePHAN and KNOX genes is different from that proposed for simple-leafed species. We propose that this change in the regulatory relationship between KNOX genes and LePHAN plays a role in compound leaf development and is an important feature that distinguishes simple leaves from compound leaves.

No abstract

Various factors, including taxon density, sampling error, convergence, and heterogeneity of evolutionary rates, can potentially lead to incongruence between phylogenetic trees based on different genomes. Particularly at the generic level and below, chloroplast capture resulting from hybridization may distort organismal relationships in phylogenetic analyses based on the chloroplast genome, or genes included therein. However, the extent of such discord between chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) trees and those trees based on nuclear genes has rarely been assessed. We therefore used sequences of the internal transcribed spacer regions (ITS‐1 and ITS‐2) of nuclear ribosomal DNA (rDNA) to reconstruct phylogenetic relationships among members of the Heuchera group of genera (Saxifragaceae). The Heuchera group presents an important model for the analysis of chloroplast capture and its impact on phylogenetic reconstruction because hybridization is well documented within genera (e.g., Heuchera), and intergeneric hybrids involving six of the nine genera have been reported. An earlier study provided a well‐resolved phylogenetic hypothesis for the Heuchera group based on cpDNA restriction‐site variation. However, trees based on ITS sequences are discordant with the cpDNA‐based tree. Evidence from both morphology and nuclear‐encoded allozymes is consistent with the ITS trees, rather than the cpDNA tree, and several points of phylogenetic discord can clearly be attributed to chloroplast capture. Comparison of the organellar and ITS trees also raises the strong likelihood that ancient events of chloroplast capture occurred between lineages during the early diversification of the Heuchera group. Thus, despite the many advantages and widespread use of cpDNA data in phylogeny reconstruction, comparison of relationships based on cpDNA and ITS sequences for the Heuchera group underscores the need for caution in the use of organellar variation for retrieving phylogeny at lower taxonomic levels, particularly in groups noted for hybridization.

No abstract