2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107400
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evolving in the darkness: Phylogenomics of Sinocyclocheilus cavefishes highlights recent diversification and cryptic diversity

Abstract: Troglomorphism-any morphological adaptation enabling life to the constant darkness of caves, such as loss of pigment, reduced eyesight or blindness, over-developed tactile and olfactory organs-has long intrigued biologists. However, inferring the proximate and ultimate mechanisms driving the evolution of troglomorphism in freshwater fish requires a sound understanding of the evolutionary relationships between surface and troglomorphic lineages. We use Restriction Site Associated DNA Sequencing (RADseq) to bett… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
17
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
(43 reference statements)
3
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Initially, Sinocyclocheilus was divided into four species groups, S. jii, S. angularis, S. cyphotergous, and S. tingi, based on mitochondrial Cyt b and morphological differences . Phylogenetic trees reconstructed using mitochondrial ND4 and Cyt b, mitochondrial genome, and restriction site-associated DNA sequencing supported monophyly of the S. jii and S. tingi species groups and rejected monophyly of the S. angularis and S. cyphotergous species groups (Xiang 2014;Liu 2018;Mao et al 2021Mao et al , 2022Wen et al 2022;this study). These studies proposed new classification schemes, such as two new clades (Clades E and F) from Mao et al (2022) and a new species group (S. microphthalmus group) from Wen et al (2022).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Initially, Sinocyclocheilus was divided into four species groups, S. jii, S. angularis, S. cyphotergous, and S. tingi, based on mitochondrial Cyt b and morphological differences . Phylogenetic trees reconstructed using mitochondrial ND4 and Cyt b, mitochondrial genome, and restriction site-associated DNA sequencing supported monophyly of the S. jii and S. tingi species groups and rejected monophyly of the S. angularis and S. cyphotergous species groups (Xiang 2014;Liu 2018;Mao et al 2021Mao et al , 2022Wen et al 2022;this study). These studies proposed new classification schemes, such as two new clades (Clades E and F) from Mao et al (2022) and a new species group (S. microphthalmus group) from Wen et al (2022).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Phylogenetic trees reconstructed using mitochondrial ND4 and Cyt b, mitochondrial genome, and restriction site-associated DNA sequencing supported monophyly of the S. jii and S. tingi species groups and rejected monophyly of the S. angularis and S. cyphotergous species groups (Xiang 2014;Liu 2018;Mao et al 2021Mao et al , 2022Wen et al 2022;this study). These studies proposed new classification schemes, such as two new clades (Clades E and F) from Mao et al (2022) and a new species group (S. microphthalmus group) from Wen et al (2022). Inconsistent topological differences may be related to molecular marker types, number of species and evolutionary models.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…These species are distributed across a vast karstic expanse spanning three provinces in southern China [22]. Prior work shows that one of the major drivers of speciation in this group was isolation over long periods of time, suggesting geographical speciation has dominated this radiation [19,66,67]. These divergences occurred during the geological uplift of the Yunnan–Kweichow Plateau alongside with the aridification of China, which occurred during the Pliocene and Pleistocene eras [66].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on the phylogenetic tree, in order to avoid having an impact on the multi-species tracing of ancestral patterns, one sample of Sinocyclocheilus grahami and four samples of Sinocyclocheilus tingi were censored here, which was then filtered with 'AC==0 || AC==AN || F_MISSING >0.2' and the distance between the locus and the set SNPs to be no less than 100 bp, and ultimately reassembled them (2,642,407 SNPs for 103 individuals). For time calibration, due to the absence of a specific fossil record provides a calibration for Sinocyclocheilus, we used the time inferred by Chen et al (2009) to the split between S. grahami (F) and S. grahami (M) at approximately 2.37~0.47 Ma (Chen et al, 2009), Mao, Liu, Vasconcellos, et al (2021) to the split between S. oxycephalus and S. qujingensis at approximately 4.0~2.0 Ma (Mao, Liu, Vasconcellos, et al, 2021) and Yang et al (2021) to the split between S. grahami and S. tingi at approximately 0.68 Ma (Yang et al, 2021), and set the differentiation rate of S. grahami at 3.51 × 10 −9 per year per nucleotide (Yang et al, 2016). We ran an independent SNAPP analysis with 20 million MCMC generations, sampling at every 2000 steps.…”
Section: Divergence Time Estimationmentioning
confidence: 99%