Skip to main content
PMC home page
PeerJ logoLink to PeerJ
. 2021 Feb 10;9:e10774. doi: 10.7717/peerj.10774

Comparative analysis of the complete plastid genomes of Mangifera species and gene transfer between plastid and mitochondrial genomes

Yingfeng Niu 1, Chengwen Gao 2,✉, Jin Liu 1,✉
Editor: Rogerio Sotelo-Mundo
PMCID: PMC7881718  PMID: 33614280

Abstract

Mango is an important commercial fruit crop belonging to the genus Mangifera. In this study, we reported and compared four newly sequenced plastid genomes of the genus Mangifera, which showed high similarities in overall size (157,780–157,853 bp), genome structure, gene order, and gene content. Three mutation hotspots (trnG-psbZ, psbD-trnT, and ycf4-cemA) were identified as candidate DNA barcodes for Mangifera. These three DNA barcode candidate sequences have high species identification ability. We also identified 12 large fragments that were transferred from the plastid genome to the mitochondrial genome, and found that the similarity was more than 99%. The total size of the transferred fragment was 35,652 bp, accounting for 22.6% of the plastid genome. Fifteen intact chloroplast genes, four tRNAs and numerous partial genes and intergenic spacer regions were identified. There are many of these genes transferred from mitochondria to the chloroplast in other species genomes. Phylogenetic analysis based on whole plastid genome data provided a high support value, and the interspecies relationships within Mangifera were resolved well.

Keywords: Mangifera, Chloroplast genome, DNA barcodes, Gene transfer, Phylogenetic analysis

Introduction

Mango is a tall, evergreen tree belonging to the genus Mangifera of the Anacardiaceae family. It is an important tropical fruit (Iquebal et al., 2017; Lora & Hormaza, 2018) that originates in tropical and subtropical regions in Southeast Asia (Dutta et al., 2013; Sherman et al., 2015). Owing to its wide range of cultivation (Bajpai et al., 2016), high nutrient value, pleasing appearance, and unique flavor (Surapaneni et al., 2013), it is widely loved by consumers and has the reputation of being known as the “King of Tropical Fruits” (Khan, Ali & Khan, 2015). Southeast Asian countries have a history of mango cultivation that spans thousands of years (Ravishankar et al., 2013). Mangoes were introduced to Africa, South America, and other continents hundreds of years ago, and several varieties suitable for local cultivation have been developed (Mansour, Mekki & Hussein, 2014; Sennhenn et al., 2014). There are 69 species of mango in the world that are mainly distributed in tropical and subtropical countries including India, Indonesia, the Malay Peninsula, Thailand, and South China, of which, five species are grown in China, namely M. indica, M. persiciformis, M. longipes, M. hiemalis, and M. sylvatica; however, the varieties cultivated in production belong to M. indica. Phylogenetic analysis of Mangifera species has been a hot topic of research (Nishiyama et al., 2006; Sankaran et al., 2018), while the whole chloroplast genome sequences can provide more genetic information and higher species resolution ability than other molecular data. However, the chloroplast genomes of most Mangifera plants remain unknown (Azim, Khan & Zhang, 2014).

Chloroplasts are special organelles that are involved in photosynthesis and consist of layers of thylakoids. They have their own DNA and can split. The chloroplast genome is conserved and consists of four parts. Two inverted repeat (IR) regions separate the small copy region (SSC) and large copy region (LSC). Currently, with the rapid development of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology, the entire chloroplast genome has been widely used for phylogenetic analysis. They can provide a large number of variable sites for phylogenetic analysis (Gitzendanner et al., 2018). Thus, the entire chloroplast genome shows the potential to resolve evolutionary relationships and produce highly resolved phylogenetic and genetic diversity, particularly in some complex taxa or at low taxonomic levels, which have unresolved relationships (Hu et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2019).

In this study, the chloroplast genomes of four Mangifera species were sequenced and compared with M. Indica and 21 Sapindales plastids. The objectives of this study were as follows: (1) to comparatively analyze the chloroplast genome structure of five species of Mangifera; (2) to identify highly divergent regions of the chloroplast genomes of Mangifera; (3) to determine the insertion of chloroplast genes into mitochondria; (4) to explore the evolutionary relationship between the genus, Mangifera, and Sapindales. Overall, this study would be helpful to further understand plastid evolution and phylogeny of the genus, Mangifera.

Materials and Methods

Plant material, DNA extraction, and sequencing

Fresh leaves of four Mangifera species (M. hiemalis, M. persiciformis, M. longipes, and M. sylvatica) were collected from Xishuangbanna Tropical Flowers and Plants Garden, South Yunnan, China, and frozen in liquid nitrogen. Total genomic DNA was extracted from all samples according to CTAB method (Li et al., 2013). DNA quality was detected using 1% agarose gel electrophoresis and samples were stored at −80 °C until further use.

About 5–10 µg of total DNA were extracted from each of the Mangifera samples to construct a shotgun library with an average insertion size of 300 bp. Paired-end libraries were constructed with NEBNext® DNA Library Prep Master Mix Set for Illumina according to the manufacturer’s recommendation. Illumina HiSeq 2500 system (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) was used to sequence DNA samples in the paired-end sequencing mode by Novogene Bioinformatics Technology Co. Ltd (Beijing, China), generating approximately 8.0 Gb of raw data per sample. The plastome depth of coverage was more than 2000 ×.

Chloroplast genome assembly and annotation

The Trimmomatic v0.38 was used to filter raw sequencing data (Bolger, Lohse & Usadel, 2014), and the obtained clean data were de novo assembled using SPAdes v3.61 under different K-mer parameters (Bankevich et al., 2012). The scaffolds that were positively associated with chloroplasts were arranged on the reference chloroplast genome of M. indica (NC_035239). Paired-end reads were remapped to consensus assembly and multiple iterations were performed to fill in the gaps in the final consensus sequence using Geneious software v2020.0.4 (Kearse et al., 2012).

Chloroplast genome annotation was performed using GeSeq (https://chlorobox.mpimp-golm.mpg.de/geseq.html) to predict genes encoding proteins, transfer RNA (tRNA), and ribosomal RNA (rRNA), and was adjusted manually as needed (Tillich et al., 2017). We also manually examined the IR junctions of all Mangifera species. A circular diagram of the chloroplast genomes of Mangifera was subsequently drawn using OGDRAW v1.3.1 (Greiner, Lehwark & Bock, 2019).

Genome comparative analysis and divergent hotspot identification

MAFFT v7.221 was used to align the chloroplast genome sequences of five Mangifera plants (Katoh & Standley, 2013). Next, DnaSP v6.12 was used to perform a sliding window analysis with the step size of 200 bp and window length of 600 bp, to detect the rapidly evolving molecular markers for performing phylogenetic analysis (Librado & Rozas, 2009).

Identification of chloroplast gene insertion in mitochondria

First, we removed the BLAST hits of genes transferred between chloroplast and mitochondrial genomes by mapping the mitochondrial genome of M. indica (GenBank: CM021857) to the plastid genomes. Circos v0.69-9 (Krzywinski et al., 2009) software was used to map the mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes of the Mangifera species as well as gene-transfer fragments.

Phylogenetic analysis

Phylogenetic analyses were performed for five Mangifera (4 species sequenced here) and 21 Sapindales species, using Arabidopsis thaliana as outgroups. MAFFT 7.221 (Katoh & Standley, 2013) was used to align the chloroplast genome sequences of Sapindales species. We used the following three methods to perform phylogenetic analyses of Mangifera species: Bayesian Inference (BI) with a GTR + I + G model using MrBayes v3.2 (Ronquist et al., 2012), the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm was run for 1 million generations and sampled every 100 generations. Maximum Likelihood (ML) using MEGA v7.0 with 1000 bootstrap replicates (Kumar, Stecher & Tamura, 2016), and Maximum Parsimony (MP) with a heuristic search in PAUP v4.0 with 1,000 random taxon stepwise addition sequences (Swofford, 1993). A 50% majority-rule consensus phylogeny was constructed using 1,000 bootstrap replications.

Results and Discussion

Basic characteristics of the Mangifera chloroplast genomes

Raw data (approximately from 7.1 × 109 to 8.3 × 109 bp) were obtained from M. hiemalis (MN917208), M. persiciformis (MN917209), M. longipes (MN917210), and M. sylvatica (MN917211). The four newly sequenced Mangifera chloroplast genomes have been presented to the GenBank database.

Characteristics of four newly sequenced and one reported Mangifera chloroplast genomes were investigated. Mangifera chloroplast genome sequence sizes were 157,780∼157,853 bp (Fig. 1), with the largest and smallest being those of M. longipes and M. indica, respectively. Mangifera chloroplast genomes are characterized by a typical four-part structure, two IR copies (26,354–26,379 bp) separating the LSC (86,673–86,726 bp) and SSC (18,347–18,369 bp) regions. In addition, the GC content of Mangifera genomes was similar, ranging from 37.88–37.89%. Five Mangifera chloroplast genomes contained 113 predicted functional genes, including 79 protein-coding genes, four ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes, and 30 transfer RNA (tRNA) genes (Tables 1 and 2). Furthermore, 15 functional genes, including four protein-coding genes, four ribosomal RNA genes, and seven transfer RNA gene replicate in the IR regions of the chloroplast genome. The number, type, and order of genes were found to be very similar among the five Mangifera chloroplast genomes (Jo et al., 2017; Rabah et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2020). The whole chloroplast genome sequences of four Mangifera species were submitted to GenBank with the accession numbers of MN917208 to MN917211.

Figure 1. Sequence diagram of Mangifera chloroplast genomes.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Gene map of Mangifera chloroplast genomes, sequence alignment of Mangifera species chloroplast genome ((A) M. Sylvatica, (B) M. hiemalis, (C) M. longipes, (D) M. persiciformis with reference to M. indica), GC content, and GC skew from the outside to inside.

Table 1. Summary of chloroplast genome features of five Mangifera species.

Genome feature M. indica M. longipes M. persiciformis M. hiemalis M. sylvatica
Total size (bp) 157,780 157,853 157,799 157,796 157,824
LSC Length (bp) 86,673 86,726 86,724 86,718 86,719
SSC Length (bp) 18,349 18,369 18,367 18,368 18,347
IR Length (bp) 26,379 26,379 26,354 26,355 26,379
Total Genes 113 113 113 113 113
Protein coding Genes 79 79 79 79 79
Structure RNAs 34 34 34 34 34
GC Content (%) 37.89% 37.88% 37.88% 37.89% 37.89%
GenBank Accessions NC035239 MN917210 MN917209 MN917208 MN917211
Open in a new tab

Table 2. Genes contained in Mangifera chloroplast genome.

Category Group of genes Name of genes
Self replication Ribosomal RNA genes rrn4.5, rrn5, rrn16, rrn23
Small subunit of ribosome rps2, rps3, rps4, rps7, rps8, rps11, rps12, rps14, rps15, rps16, rps18, rps19
Transfer RNA genes trnR-UCU, trnS-GCU, trnA-UGC, trnC-GCA, trnF-GAA, trnG-GCC, trnG-UCC, trnD-GUC, trnE-UUC, trnH-GUG, trnN-GUU, trnP-UGG, trnQ-UUG, trnR-ACG, trnI-GAU, trnY-GUA, trnK-UUU, trnL-CAA, trnL-UAA, trnI-CAU, trnV-GAC, trnV-UAC, trnW-CCA, trnL-UAG, trnfM-CAU, trnM-CAU, trnS-GGA, trnS-UGA, trnT-GGU, trnT-UGU
DNA dependent RNA polymerase rpoA, rpoB, rpoC1, rpoC2
Large subunit of ribosome rpl2, rpl14, rpl16, rpl20,rpl22, rpl23, rpl32, rpl33, rpl36
Photosynthesis Subunits of photosystem I psaA, psaB, psaC, psaI, psaJ, ycf3, ycf4
Subunits of NADH-dehydrogenase ndhA, ndhB, ndhC, ndhD, ndhE, ndhF, ndhG, ndhH, ndhI, ndhJ, ndhK
Subunits of ATP synthase atpA, atpB, atpE, atpF, atpH, atpI
Subunits of photosystem II psbA, psbB, psbC, psbD, psbE, psbF, psbH, psbI, psbJ, psbK, psbL, psbM, psbN, psbT, psbZ
Subunits of cytochrome complex petA, petB, petD, petG, petL, petN
Protease clpP
Other genes Maturase matK
Acetyl-CoA-carboxylase c-type Cytochrome synthesis gene ccsA
Large subunit of rubisco rbcL
Envelop membrane protein cemA
Subunit of Acetyl-CoA-carboxylase accD
Hypothetical chloroplast ycf1, ycf2, ycf15
Open in a new tab

The IR/SC connected regions were found nearly identical relative positions in the five Mangifera chloroplast genomes (Fig. 2). All LSC-IRb connections were found to be located within the rps19 gene, resulting in a partial expansion of the IRb region to the rps19 gene (80–104 bp). The IRb-SSC boundary was located in the ndhF gene, while the SSC-IRa boundary in the five chloroplast genomes was located in the ycf1 gene.

Figure 2. Comparison of inverted repeat (IR) boundary among Mangifera species, where genes and gene fragments across IRa/b junctions are represented in color boxes above the horizontal line.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Genes and IR segments are not mapped to scale.

Comparative Mangifera chloroplast genomes and Divergence Hotspot Regions

Using the comparative sequence analysis of the five species of Mangifera, we found that the plastid genome was quite conservative in the five taxa, although there were a few regions with variations. In general, sequences are conserved in the coding region, and most of the detected variations are in the non-coding region. The results agree with previous reports that non-coding regions showed greater divergence than coding regions, this is possibly caused by coding regions affected by stronger selective pressure (Li et al., 2018). Consistent with similar studies involving other plants, the IR regions appear to be more conservative than the LSC and SSC regions (Fig. 1) (Liang et al., 2019; Song et al., 2019). A search for nucleotide substitutions identified 638 variable sites (0.40%) in the five chloroplast genomes, including 489 parsimony-informative sites (0.31%), this number is smaller than other genus species (Gao et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020).

To identify hotspots of sequence divergence, the nucleotide diversity (Pi) values within the 600 bp window of the Mangifera chloroplast genomes were calculated (Fig. 3). We found that Pi values varied from 0–0.033, and the three hypervariable regions (Pi > 0.02) of the five Mangifera chloroplast genomes were trnG-psbZ, psbD-trnT, and ycf4-cemA. The trnG-psbZ region exhibited the highest variability (7.44%).

Figure 3. Mangifera Chloroplast genomes sliding window analysis (window length: 600 bp; step size: 200 bp).

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

X-axis, Position of a window; Y-axis, Genetic diversity per window.

Here, we found an increase in the number of variable sites in the following three specific regions based on the results of pairwise plastid genomic alignment and SNP analysis: trnG-psbZ, psbD-trnT, and ycf4-cemA. Thus, Mangifera species may be detected using these regions as novel candidate fragments. Figure S1 presents the graphical representation of these results using the ML method. These three DNA barcode candidate sequences have high species identification ability. However, further experiments are required to support this Mangifera plastid sequence data.

Characterization of gene transfer of Mangifera chloroplast genome to mitochondrial genome

The mitochondrial genome of M. indica was obtained from GenBank and was 87,1458 bp in size, approximately 5.5 times that of the chloroplast genome consisting of 94 functional genes. We identified 12 large chloroplast genome fragments in the mitochondrial genome, including genes and intergenomic regions. These fragments ranged from 1,522–5,400 bp and the sequences were over 99% consistent. The total length of these fragments was 35,652 bp, accounting for 22.6% of the chloroplast genome (Fig. 4 and Table S1). Fifteen intact chloroplast genes (rps19, rpl2, rpl23, petN, rbcL, accD, psbJ, psbL, psbF, psbE, petL, petG, psaA, atpA, cemA ), four tRNAs (trnI-CAU, trnC-GCA, trnW-CCA, trnP-UGG) and numerous partial genes and intergenic spacer regions were identified. There are many of these genes transferred from mitochondria to the chloroplast in other species genomes, such as rps12, rpl23, rbcL, petL, petG, trnW-CCA and trnP-UGG (Gao et al., 2020; Gui et al., 2016).

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of gene transfer between chloroplast and mitochondria in Mangifera species.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Colored lines within the circle show where the chloroplast genome is inserted into the mitochondrial genome. Genes within a circle are transcribed clockwise, while those outside the circle are transcribed counterclockwise.

Intracellular gene transfer exists between different genomes, including those of the chloroplasts, mitochondria, and nuclei (Nguyen et al., 2020; Timmis et al., 2004). Research shows that the frequency of nuclear DNA transfer from organelles in angiosperms is very high (Hazkani-Covo, Zeller & Martin, 2010; Park et al., 2014; Smith, 2011). Gene transfer from chloroplast to mitochondrial genomes is a common phenomenon during long-term evolution (Gui et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2020). Due to high sequence identity between the transferred chloroplast genome fragments in the mitochondrial and original chloroplast genomes, gene transfer can lead to assembly errors in these genomes.

Phylogenetic relationship of chloroplast genomes

In this study, the chloroplast genome was used for infer the phylogenetic location of Mangifera in Sapindales (Fig. 5) and performed a phylogenetic analysis of the chloroplast genome using three different methods, namely, ML, MP, and BI. BI and ML analyses revealed almost the same topology, and most branches had very high support (Fig. S2). However, MP trees differed slightly from BI and ML trees in some taxa (Fig. S3). Despite differences between these three approaches, the relationships between most groups were well resolved and highly supported, suggesting that the use of chloroplast genome data does significantly improve the resolution of phylogenetic analysis. Previous studies have revealed the genetic relationship of Mangifera through morphological, nuclear, amplified fragment length polymorphism, ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS), and partial chloroplast gene analysis (Eiadthong et al., 2000; Nishiyama et al., 2006; Sankaran et al., 2018; Yonemori et al., 2002). The whole chloroplast genome sequence-based phylogenetic tree was built to explore the evolutionary similarities/differences between Mangifera species and between genera in the Sapindales. Phylogenetic analysis based on complete genome sequences, rather than a few genes, has been carried out in a large number of higher plant species, significantly improving the resolution of phylogenetic analysis (Zhai et al., 2019).

Figure 5. ML phylogenetic tree of five Mangifera species with 21 related species in the Sapindales based on whole chloroplast genome sequence.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Numbers related to the branches are ML bootstrap value, MP bootstrap value, and Bayesian posterior probability, respectively. Asterisk denotes 100% bootstrap support or 1.0 posterior probability.

Conclusions

In this study, the chloroplast genomes of four Mangifera species were sequenced and compared. It was found that the size, structure, and gene content of the Mangifera chloroplast genomes were conserved. Comparative analysis showed a low degree of sequence variation. We identified 13 large fragments that were transferred from the chloroplast genome to the mitochondrial genome. In addition, we identified three mutation hotspots as DNA barcodes for the identification of Mangifera species. These complete chloroplast genome sequences and highly variable markers provide sufficient genetic information for the phylogenetic reconstruction and species identification of the genus Mangifera.

Supplemental Information

Supplemental Information 1. Mangifera hiemalis.
Click here for additional data file. (278.2KB, gb)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-1
Supplemental Information 2. Mangifera longipes.
Click here for additional data file. (159.3KB, fasta)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-2
Supplemental Information 3. Mangifera longipes.
Click here for additional data file. (277.1KB, gb)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-3
Supplemental Information 4. Mangifera persiciformis.
Click here for additional data file. (279.4KB, gb)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-4
Supplemental Information 5. Mangifera sylvatica.
Click here for additional data file. (159.3KB, fasta)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-5
Supplemental Information 6. Mangifera sylvatica.
Click here for additional data file. (276.9KB, gb)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-6
Supplemental Information 7. Mangifera persiciformis.
Click here for additional data file. (159.3KB, fasta)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-7
Supplemental Information 8. Mangifera hiemalis.
Click here for additional data file. (159.3KB, fasta)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-8
Supplemental Information 9. Phylogenetic tree of Mangifera. species using maximum likelihood (ML) methods based on three mutation hotspots.
Click here for additional data file. (179.6KB, png)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-9
Supplemental Information 10. Phylogenetic trees of Sapindales based on Bayesian analysis.
Click here for additional data file. (12.6MB, png)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-10
Supplemental Information 11. Phylogenetic trees of Sapindales based on maximum parsimony (MP) analysis.
Click here for additional data file. (11.1MB, png)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-11
Supplemental Information 12. Morphological characteristics of fruits of five Mangifera species.
Click here for additional data file. (1.7MB, png)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-12
Supplemental Information 13. Blast results between chloroplast and mitochondrial genome in Mangifera.
Click here for additional data file. (10.1KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-13

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to thank Zhangguang Ni for the collection of experiment material.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Youth Talent Growth Fund of YITC (QNCZ2020-3), Technology Innovation Talents Project of Yunnan Province (2018HB086), and Sci-tech Innovation System Construction for Tropical Crops Grant of Yunnan Province (No. RF2021). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Contributor Information

Chengwen Gao, Email: gaochengwen6@126.com.

Jin Liu, Email: liujin06@126.com.

Additional Information and Declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Yingfeng Niu conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft.

Chengwen Gao conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft.

Jin Liu conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft.

DNA Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding the deposition of DNA sequences:

Data are available at GenBank: MN917208 –MN917211.

Data Availability

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Data are available at NCBI: PRJNA655379.

References

  • Azim, Khan & Zhang (2014).Azim MK, Khan IA, Zhang Y. Characterization of mango (Mangifera indica L.) transcriptome and chloroplast genome. Plant Molecular Biology. 2014;85:193–208. doi: 10.1007/s11103-014-0179-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bajpai et al. (2016).Bajpai A, Muthukumar M, Ahmad I, Ravishankar KV, Parthasarthy VA, Sthapit B, Rao R, Verma SP, Rajan S. Molecular and morphological diversity in locally grown non-commercial (heirloom) mango varieties of North India. Journal of Environmental Biology. 2016;37:221–228. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bankevich et al. (2012).Bankevich A, Nurk S, Antipov D, Gurevich AA, Dvorkin M, Kulikov AS, Lesin VM, Nikolenko SI, Pham S, Prjibelski AD, Pyshkin AV, Sirotkin AV, Vyahhi N, Tesler G, Alekseyev MA, Pevzner PA. SPAdes: a new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. Journal of Computational Biology. 2012;19:455–477. doi: 10.1089/cmb.2012.0021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bolger, Lohse & Usadel (2014).Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–2120. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dutta et al. (2013).Dutta SK, Srivastav M, Rymbai H, Chaudhary R, Singh AK, Dubey AK, Lal K. Pollen-pistil interaction studies in mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars. Scientia Horticulturae. 2013;160:213–221. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2013.05.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Eiadthong et al. (2000).Eiadthong W, Yonemori K, Kanzaki S, Sugiura A, Utsunomiya N, Subhadrabandhu S. Amplified fragment length polymorphism analysis for studying genetic relationships among Mangifera species in Thailand. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 2000;125:160–164. doi: 10.21273/jashs.125.2.160. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Gao et al. (2020).Gao CW, Wu CH, Zhang Q, Zhao X, Wu MX, Chen RR, Zhao YL, Li ZQ. Characterization of chloroplast genomes from two Salvia medicinal plants and gene transfer among their mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes. Frontiers in Genetics. 2020;11:574962. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.574962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gitzendanner et al. (2018).Gitzendanner MA, Soltis PS, Wong GKS, Ruhfel BR, Soltis DE. Plastid phylogenomic analysis of green plants: a billion years of evolutionary history. American Journal of Botany. 2018;105:291–301. doi: 10.1002/ajb2.1048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Greiner, Lehwark & Bock (2019).Greiner S, Lehwark P, Bock R. OrganellarGenomeDRAW (OGDRAW) version 1.3.1: expanded toolkit for the graphical visualization of organellar genomes. Nucleic Acids Research. 2019;47:W59–W64. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gui et al. (2016).Gui ST, Wu ZH, Zhang HY, Zheng YZ, Zhu ZX, Liang DQ, Ding Y. The mitochondrial genome map of Nelumbo nucifera reveals ancient evolutionary features. Scientific Reports. 2016;6:30158. doi: 10.1038/srep30158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hazkani-Covo, Zeller & Martin (2010).Hazkani-Covo E, Zeller RM, Martin W. Molecular poltergeists: mitochondrial DNA copies (numts) in sequenced nuclear genomes. PLOS Genetics. 2010;6:e1000834. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000834. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hu et al. (2016).Hu H, Hu QJ, Al-Shehbaz IA, Luo X, Zeng TT, Guo XY, Liu JQ. Species delimitation and interspecific relationships of the genus Orychophragmus (Brassicaceae) inferred from whole chloroplast genomes. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016;7:1826. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01826. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Huang et al. (2020).Huang J, Yu Y, Liu YM, Xie DF, He XJ, Zhou SD. Comparative chloroplast genomics of fritillaria (Liliaceae), inferences for phylogenetic relationships between Fritillaria and lilium and plastome evolution. Plants-Basel. 2020;9:133. doi: 10.3390/plants9020133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Iquebal et al. (2017).Iquebal MA, Jaiswal S, Mahato AK, Jayaswal PK, Angadi UB, Kumar N, Sharma N, Singh AK, Srivastav M, Prakash J, Singh SK, Khan K, Mishra RK, Rajan S, Bajpai A, Sandhya BS, Nischita P, Ravishankar KV, Dinesh MR, Rai A, Kumar D, Sharma TR, Singh NK. MiSNPDb: a web-based genomic resources of tropical ecology fruit mango (Mangifera indica L.) for phylogeography and varietal differentiation. Scientific Reports. 2017;7:14968. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14998-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Jo et al. (2017).Jo S, Kim HW, Kim YK, Sohn JY, Cheon SH, Kim KJ. The complete plastome sequences of Mangifera indica L. (Anacardiaceae) Mitochondrial DNA Part B-Resources. 2017;2:698–700. doi: 10.1080/23802359.2017.1390407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Katoh & Standley (2013).Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2013;30:772–780. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kearse et al. (2012).Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, Stones-Havas S, Cheung M, Sturrock S, Buxton S, Cooper A, Markowitz S, Duran C, Thierer T, Ashton B, Meintjes P, Drummond A. Geneious basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:1647–1649. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Khan, Ali & Khan (2015).Khan AS, Ali S, Khan IA. Morphological and molecular characterization and evaluation of mango germplasm: an overview. Scientia Horticulturae. 2015;194:353–366. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2015.08.031. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Krzywinski et al. (2009).Krzywinski M, Schein J, Birol I, Connors J, Gascoyne R, Horsman D, Jones SJ, Marra MA. Circos: an information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Research. 2009;19:1639–1645. doi: 10.1101/gr.092759.109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kumar, Stecher & Tamura (2016).Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2016;33:1870–1874. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Li et al. (2013).Li J, Wang S, Jing Y, Ling W, Zhou S. A modified CTAB protocol for plant DNA extraction. Chinese Bulletin of Botany. 2013;48:72–78. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1259.2013.00072. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Li et al. (2018).Li YT, Zhang J, Li LF, Gao LJ, Xu JT, Yang MS. Structural and comparative analysis of the complete chloroplast genome of Pyrus hopeiensis “Wild Plants with a Tiny Population”and three other Pyrus Species. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2018;19:3262. doi: 10.3390/ijms19103262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Liang et al. (2019).Liang CL, Wang L, Lei J, Duan BZ, Ma WS, Xiao SM, Qi HJ, Wang Z, Liu YQ, Shen XF, Guo S, Hu HY, Xu J, Chen SL. A comparative analysis of the chloroplast genomes of four Salvia medicinal plants. Engineering. 2019;5:907–915. doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2019.01.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Librado & Rozas (2009).Librado P, Rozas J. DnaSP v5: a software for comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1451–1452. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lora & Hormaza (2018).Lora J, Hormaza JI. Pollen wall development in mango (Mangifera indica L., Anacardiaceae) Plant Reproduction. 2018;31:385–397. doi: 10.1007/s00497-018-0342-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Mansour, Mekki & Hussein (2014).Mansour H, Mekki LE, Hussein MA. Assessment of genetic diversity and relationships among Egyptian mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivers grown in Suez Canal and Sinai region using RAPD markers. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 2014;17:56–61. doi: 10.3923/pjbs.2014.56.61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Nguyen et al. (2020).Nguyen VB, Giang VNL, Waminal NE, Park HS, Kim NH, Jang W, Lee J, Yang TJ. Comprehensive comparative analysis of chloroplast genomes from seven Panax species and development of an authentication system based on species-unique single nucleotide polymorphism markers. Journal of Ginseng Research. 2020;44:135–144. doi: 10.1016/j.jgr.2018.06.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Nishiyama et al. (2006).Nishiyama K, Choi YA, Honsho C, Eiadthong W, Yonemori K. Application of genomic in situ hybridization for phylogenetic study between Mangifera indica L. and eight wild species of Mangifera. Scientia Horticulturae. 2006;110:114–117. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2006.06.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Park et al. (2014).Park S, Ruhlman TA, Sabir JSM, Mutwakil MHZ, Baeshen MN, Sabir MJ, Baeshen NA, Jansen RK. Complete sequences of organelle genomes from the medicinal plant Rhazya stricta (Apocynaceae) and contrasting patterns of mitochondrial genome evolution across asterids. Bmc Genomics. 2014;15:405. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Rabah et al. (2017).Rabah SO, Lee C, Hajrah NH, Makki RM, Alharby HF, Alhebshi AM, Sabir JSM, Jansen RK, Ruhlman TA. Plastome sequencing of ten nonmodel crop species uncovers a large insertion of mitochondrial DNA in cashew. Plant Genome. 2017;10:29293812. doi: 10.3835/plantgenome2017.03.0020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ravishankar et al. (2013).Ravishankar KV, Dinesh MR, Mani BH, Padmakar B, Vasugi C. Assessment of genetic diversity of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars from Indian Peninsula using Sequence Tagged Microsatellite Site (STMS) markers. In: Lu P, editor. Ix international mango symposium. Int Soc Horticultural Science; Leuven 1: 2013. pp. 269–275. [Google Scholar]
  • Ronquist et al. (2012).Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Hohna S, Larget B, Liu L, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP. MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology. 2012;61:539–542. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/sys029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sankaran et al. (2018).Sankaran M, Dinesh MR, Chaitra N, Ravishankar KV. Morphological, cytological, palynological and molecular characterization of certain Mangifera species. Current Science. 2018;115:1379–1386. doi: 10.18520/cs/v115/i7/1379-1386. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Sennhenn et al. (2014).Sennhenn A, Prinz K, Gebauer J, Whitbread A, Jamnadass R, Kehlenbeck K. Identification of mango (Mangifera indica L.) landraces from Eastern and Central Kenya using a morphological and molecular approach. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 2014;61:7–22. doi: 10.1007/s10722-013-0012-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Sherman et al. (2015).Sherman A, Rubinstein M, Eshed R, Benita M, Ish-Shalom M, Sharabi-Schwager M, Rozen A, Saada D, Cohen Y, Ophir R. Mango (Mangifera indica L.) germplasm diversity based on single nucleotide polymorphisms derived from the transcriptome. Bmc Plant Biology. 2015;15:277. doi: 10.1186/s12870-015-0663-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Smith (2011).Smith DR. Extending the limited transfer window hypothesis to inter-organelle DNA migration. Genome Biology and Evolution. 2011;3:743–748. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evr068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Song et al. (2019).Song Y, Zhang YJ, Xu J, Li WM, Li MF. Characterization of the complete chloroplast genome sequence of Dalbergia species and its phylogenetic implications. Scientific Reports. 2019;9:20401. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56727-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Surapaneni et al. (2013).Surapaneni M, Vemireddy LR, Begum H, Reddy BP, Neetasri C, Nagaraju J, Anwar SY, Siddiq EA. Population structure and genetic analysis of different utility types of mango (Mangifera indica L.) germplasm of Andhra Pradesh state of India using microsatellite markers. Plant Systematics and Evolution. 2013;299:1215–1229. doi: 10.1007/s00606-013-0790-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Swofford (1993).Swofford DL. PAUP – a Computer-Program for phylogenetic inference using maximum parsimony. Journal of General Physiology. 1993;102:A9–A9. [Google Scholar]
  • Tillich et al. (2017).Tillich M, Lehwark P, Pellizzer T, Ulbricht-Jones ES, Fischer A, Bock R, Greiner S. GeSeq - versatile and accurate annotation of organelle genomes. Nucleic Acids Research. 2017;45:W6–W11. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Timmis et al. (2004).Timmis JN, Ayliffe MA, Huang CY, Martin W. Endosymbiotic gene transfer: organelle genomes forge eukaryotic chromosomes. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2004;5:123–U116. doi: 10.1038/nrg1271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Xu et al. (2019).Xu WQ, Losh J, Chen C, Li P, Wang RH, Zhao YP, Qiu YX, Fu CX. Comparative genomics of figworts (Scrophularia, Scrophulariaceae), with implications for the evolution of Scrophularia and Lamiales. Journal of Systematics and Evolution. 2019;57:55–65. doi: 10.1111/jse.12421. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Yonemori et al. (2002).Yonemori K, Honsho C, Kanzaki S, Eiadthong W, Sugiura A. Phylogenetic relationships of Mangifera species revealed by ITS sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA and a possibility of their hybrid origin. Plant Systematics and Evolution. 2002;231:59–75. doi: 10.1007/s006060200011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhai et al. (2019).Zhai W, Duan XS, Zhang R, Guo CC, Li L, Xu GX, Shan HY, Kong HZ, Ren Y. Chloroplast genomic data provide new and robust insights into the phylogeny and evolution of the Ranunculaceae. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2019;135:12–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2019.02.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang et al. (2020).Zhang Y, Ou KW, Huang GD, Lu YF, Yang GQ, Pang XH. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of Mangifera sylvatica Roxb. (Anacardiaceae) and its phylogenetic analysis. Mitochondrial DNA Part B-Resources. 2020;5:738–739. doi: 10.1080/23802359.2020.1715286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Information 1. Mangifera hiemalis.
Click here for additional data file. (278.2KB, gb)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-1
Supplemental Information 2. Mangifera longipes.
Click here for additional data file. (159.3KB, fasta)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-2
Supplemental Information 3. Mangifera longipes.
Click here for additional data file. (277.1KB, gb)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-3
Supplemental Information 4. Mangifera persiciformis.
Click here for additional data file. (279.4KB, gb)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-4
Supplemental Information 5. Mangifera sylvatica.
Click here for additional data file. (159.3KB, fasta)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-5
Supplemental Information 6. Mangifera sylvatica.
Click here for additional data file. (276.9KB, gb)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-6
Supplemental Information 7. Mangifera persiciformis.
Click here for additional data file. (159.3KB, fasta)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-7
Supplemental Information 8. Mangifera hiemalis.
Click here for additional data file. (159.3KB, fasta)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-8
Supplemental Information 9. Phylogenetic tree of Mangifera. species using maximum likelihood (ML) methods based on three mutation hotspots.
Click here for additional data file. (179.6KB, png)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-9
Supplemental Information 10. Phylogenetic trees of Sapindales based on Bayesian analysis.
Click here for additional data file. (12.6MB, png)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-10
Supplemental Information 11. Phylogenetic trees of Sapindales based on maximum parsimony (MP) analysis.
Click here for additional data file. (11.1MB, png)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-11
Supplemental Information 12. Morphological characteristics of fruits of five Mangifera species.
Click here for additional data file. (1.7MB, png)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-12
Supplemental Information 13. Blast results between chloroplast and mitochondrial genome in Mangifera.
Click here for additional data file. (10.1KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10774/supp-13

Data Availability Statement

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Data are available at NCBI: PRJNA655379.

Articles from PeerJ are provided here courtesy of PeerJ, Inc

RESOURCES