DNA barcodes and insights into the phylogenetic relationships of butterflies of the genusEurema(Pieridae) from Uttarakhand, India

Abstract

In DNA barcoding, mitochondrial gene cytochrome c oxidase I recommended as a tool for the rapid identification and discovery of species. Genus Eurema, Family Pieridae is a highly diverse and distributed along wide geographic ranges in the world as well as India including approximately 70 species throughout the world. The present study is preliminary approach, we included n=12 specimen (3 samples per species) of four different Eurema species, listed in IUCN as Least concern species, were collected from Uttarakhand (India), to give the DNA barcodes and examine patterns of gene evolution through molecular phylogenetics with publicly available sequences of other 17 Eurema species present in different countries.The generated (n=12) COI sequences compared with the sequences of the conspecifics submitted from different geographic regions, all four species were correctly identified. The obtained COI barcodes clearly showed the intraspecific and interspecific distance among four Eurema species by using a K2P technique. In spite NJ, clustering analysis also successfully discriminated all four species. In phylogenetic topology, included 21 Eurema species in the Bayesian and MaximumLikelihood analysis recovered all species in two monophyletic clades with strong support and resolved taxonomic position within species groups. Although higher-level relationships among other Eurema species groups require additional study.Keywords: Eurema; Cytochromec oxidase (COI); DNA barcoding; Phylogeny; Uttarakhand DNA barcoding (http://www.barcodinglife.org) has gained so much popularity during the last decade in documenting the global biodiversity (Hebert et al. 2003ab, Ebach and Holdrege 2005, Abdo and Golding 2007, Meusnier et al. 2008, Monaghan et al. 2009, Hajibabaei et al. 2011, Haye et al. 2012, Leray and Knowlton 2015. Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) is a widely used standard mitochondrial gene for DNA barcoding to facilitate identification of biological specimens (Hebert et al. 2003). DNA Barcoding is also using as a tool for discrimination between cryptic species and to discover new species based on nucleotide sequence divergence. Availability of large amount of sequences in public databases will indeed speed up species description and identification for taxonomist (Blaxter 2004, Ratnasingham andHebert 2007). Overall the goal of DNA barcoding is explicitly to aid species identificapeer-reviewed) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/242263 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online Jan. 3, 2018; tion, it has frequently been used for phylogenetic inference at multiple taxonomic levels (Tautz et al. 2003, Savolainen et al. 2005 prompting many scientist to contemplate the phylogenetic value of DNA barcode datasets (Tautz et al. 2003, Savolainen et al. 2005, Hajibabaei et al. 2007, Wahlberg and Wheat 2008 The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/242263...

Multiple species delimitation approaches with COI barcodes poorly fit each other and morphospecies – An integrative taxonomy case of Sri Lankan Sericini chafers (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)

“…These include the identification of disease vectors (Tabanid flies: Banerjee et al, 2015; sand flies: Gajapathy et al, 2016; biting midges Culicoides: Harrup et al, 2016; mosquitos: Weeraratne et al, 2018), and also of highly invasive agricultural pests (fruit fly: Khamis et al, 2012; tea mosquito bugs: Rebijith et al, 2012; Pentatomomorpha bugs: Tembe et al, 2014; Kaur & Sharma, 2016; thrips: Tyagi et al, 2017; and fall armyworm: Nanayakkara et al, 2020). Furthermore, barcoding approaches have been used to resolve taxonomic questions in butterflies (Goonesekera et al, 2019; Rajpoot et al, 2018), fishes (Dhaneesh et al, 2015; Ekanayake et al, 2021; Lakra et al, 2016; Raja & Perumal, 2017; Senevirathna & Munasinghe, 2013), frogs (Biju et al, 2014; Meegaskumbura et al, 2015), freshwater crabs (Beenaerts et al, 2010), spiders (Ileperuma Arachchi & Benjamin, 2019; Kanesharatnam & Benjamin, 2019), snakes (Pyron et al, 2013), and snails (Raheem et al, 2017). Concerted and comprehensive initiatives, which coordinate the sampling and data basing efforts, as known from Europe and northern America, for example, are yet missing.…”

Evolución molecular de la posición filogenética de Loxostege ayhanana Kemal & Koçak, 2017 del este de Turquía (Lepidoptera: Crambidae, Pyraustinae)

“…In the numerous studies were reported that only morphological data were unable to give unequivocal answers, but the combined analyses (morphological and molecular analyses) have given a robust phylogenetic estimate for Lepidoptera in recent years (CHEN et al, 2019;MALYSH, 2013;TRANKNER et al, 2009;WAHLBERG et al, 2005). In addition, it is emphasized that morphologically defined species should be supported with molecular analyses for species delimination or phylogenetic position (KEMAL et al, 2019;RAJPOOT et al, 2016). Therefore, for the first time in this study, the molecular evaluation of L. ayhanana in the genus was performed using the mtCOI sequence.…”

“…(MEYER & PAULAY, 2005;RACH et al, 2017). It is a common view for many researchers that a large number of molecular data is needed and that morphological, ecological and molecular synergy will reflect a correct taxonomic and higher level systematic study (KEMAL et al, 2019;RAJPOOT et al, 2016;TRANKNER et al, 2009;WAHLBERG et al, 2005).…”