2021
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-92727-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative analyses of Mikania (Asteraceae: Eupatorieae) plastomes and impact of data partitioning and inference methods on phylogenetic relationships

Abstract: We assembled new plastomes of 19 species of Mikania and of Ageratina fastigiata, Litothamnus nitidus, and Stevia collina, all belonging to tribe Eupatorieae (Asteraceae). We analyzed the structure and content of the assembled plastomes and used the newly generated sequences to infer phylogenetic relationships and study the effects of different data partitions and inference methods on the topologies. Most phylogenetic studies with plastomes ignore that processes like recombination and biparental inheritance can… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 70 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2020), and it has been suggested as a result of systematic errors that phylogenomic analyses are sensitive, or the product of biological events (e.g., heteroplasmy and horizontal gene transfer) which still need to be further investigated. In recent years, some studies have explored using the multispecies coalescent (MSC) approach for plastome markers stemming from the evidence of heteroplasmic recombination, however, most of the results tend to be confounding (Thode et al ., 2021), while there are substantial arguments to continue treating plastomes as a single estimate of the underlying species phylogeny (Doyle, 2022). However, we submit that quantifying and filtering the phylogenetic signal in plastome data is an important step for evaluating topological concordance, especially when performing downstream comparative analyses based on this data.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2020), and it has been suggested as a result of systematic errors that phylogenomic analyses are sensitive, or the product of biological events (e.g., heteroplasmy and horizontal gene transfer) which still need to be further investigated. In recent years, some studies have explored using the multispecies coalescent (MSC) approach for plastome markers stemming from the evidence of heteroplasmic recombination, however, most of the results tend to be confounding (Thode et al ., 2021), while there are substantial arguments to continue treating plastomes as a single estimate of the underlying species phylogeny (Doyle, 2022). However, we submit that quantifying and filtering the phylogenetic signal in plastome data is an important step for evaluating topological concordance, especially when performing downstream comparative analyses based on this data.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%