Phylogenetic analysis of the insect order Odonata using 28S and 16S rDNA sequences: a comparison between data sets with different evolutionary rates

Abstract

Molecular phylogenetic analyses were conducted for the insect order Odonata with a focus on testing the effectiveness of a slowly evolving gene to resolve deep branching and also to examine: (i) the monophyly of damselflies (the suborder Zygoptera); and (ii) the phylogenetic position of the relict dragonfly Epiophlebia superstes. Two independent molecular sources were used to reconstruct phylogeny: the 16S rRNA gene on the mitochondrial genome and the 28S rRNA gene on the nuclear genome. A comparison of the sequences showed that the obtained 28S rDNA sequences have evolved at a much slower rate than the 16S rDNA, and that the former is better than the latter for resolving deep branching in the Odonata. Both molecular sources indicated that the Zygoptera are paraphyletic, and when a reasonable weighting for among-site rate variation was enforced for the 16S rDNA data set, E. superstes was placed between the two remaining major suborders, namely, Zygoptera and Anisoptera (dragonflies). Character reconstruction analysis suggests that multiple hits at the rapidly evolving sites in the 16S rDNA degenerated the phylogenetic signals of the data set.

Molecular phylogeny of Orthetrum dragonflies reveals cryptic species of Orthetrum pruinosum

“…1). The 28S rRNA gene has been found to be better for resolving deep branching in the Odonata13. However, the mitochondrial genes (COI, COII and 16S) and the nuclear ITS1&2 genes unequivocally separated morphologically similar species, such as the reddish-coloured O. chrysis and O. testaceum and the bluish-coloued species O. glaucum and O. luzonicum (Figs.…”

“…The primers and annealing temperature for PCR were: COI –F: 5′- ATAATTGGRGGRTTYGGRAAY TG-3′ and R: 5′- CCAAARAATCAAAATAARTGT TG-3′18, at 50°C; COII: C2-J-3102: 5′-AAATGGCAACATGAGCACAAYT-3′ and TK-N-3773: 5′-GAGACCAGTACTTGCTTTCAGTCATC-3′19 at 50°C; 16S rDNA: 5′-TTGACTGTACAAAGGTAGC-3′ and 5′-GATATTACGCTGTTATCCC-3′20 at 50°C; 28S rDNA: 28sf, 5′-AAGGTAGCCAAATGCCTCATC-3′ and 28sr, 5′-AGTAGGGTAAAACTAACCT-3′ at 52°C13; ITS1: CAS18sF,5′- TACACACCGCCCGTCGCTACTA-3′ and CAS5p8sB1d, 5′- ATGTGCGTTCRAAATGTCGATGTTCA-3′21 at 67°C; and ITS2: CAS5p8sFc, 5′-TGAACATCGACATTTYGAACGCACAT-3′ and CAS28sB1d, 5′-TTCTTTTCCTCCSCTTAYTRATATGCTTAA-3′21 at 55°C.…”

Phylogenetic Relationships among Populations ofVollenhoviaAnts, with Particular Focus on the Evolution of Wing Morphology

“…1.8.3; Thompson et al 1994) for all taxa. Because phylogenetic signals decay at sites where many replacements occur and mutations saturate (Misof et al 2001, Hasegawa andKasuya 2006), saturated sites often are excluded from analyses (Engstrom et al 2004). In mtDNA, four partitions, namely, tRNA and three codon positions, are known as bearing different number of mutations (Li 1997).…”

How to date a dragonfly: Fossil calibrations for odonates

“…In the last two decades many studies have presented relationships among different families of Anisoptera, the dragonflies, based on morphological and molecular evidence (e.g., Carle, 1995;Bechly, 1996;Lohmann, 1996;Trueman, 1996;Bechly et al, 1998;Kambhampati and Charlton, 1999;Misof et al, 2001;Carle and Kjer, 2002;Rehn, 2003;Saux et al, 2003;Pfau, 2005;Hasegawa and Kasuya, 2006;Hovmöller, 2006;Ware et al, 2007;Bybee, 2008;Bybee et al, 2008;Carle et al, 2008;Fleck et al, 2008;Ware et al, 2008;Letsch et al, 2009;Dumont et al, 2010;Davis et al, 2011;Fleck, 2011;Blanke et al, 2013), the most recent being Carle et al (2015), but the number of studies looking at divergence times in this group are still relatively low. Most of these studies have recovered time-calibrated phylogenies at a family level (Ware et al, 2014 [Petaluridae], Ware et al, 2008 [Libelluloidea], Ware et al, 2009 [Synthemistidae]), but not for the complete suborder Anisoptera (the dragonflies).…”