Skip to main content
PeerJ logoLink to PeerJ
. 2021 Feb 24;9:e10886. doi: 10.7717/peerj.10886

Extremely low nucleotide diversity among thirty-six new chloroplast genome sequences from Aldama (Heliantheae, Asteraceae) and comparative chloroplast genomics analyses with closely related genera

Benoit Loeuille 1,✉,#, Verônica Thode 2,#, Carolina Siniscalchi 3, Sonia Andrade 4, Magdalena Rossi 5, José Rubens Pirani 5
Editor: Victoria Sosa
PMCID: PMC7912680  PMID: 33665028

Abstract

Aldama (Heliantheae, Asteraceae) is a diverse genus in the sunflower family. To date, nearly 200 Asteraceae chloroplast genomes have been sequenced, but the plastomes of Aldama remain undescribed. Plastomes in Asteraceae usually show little sequence divergence, consequently, our hypothesis is that species of Aldama will be overall conserved. In this study, we newly sequenced 36 plastomes of Aldama and of five species belonging to other Heliantheae genera selected as outgroups (i.e., Dimerostemma asperatum, Helianthus tuberosus, Iostephane heterophylla, Pappobolus lanatus var. lanatus, and Tithonia diversifolia). We analyzed the structure and gene content of the assembled plastomes and performed comparative analyses within Aldama and with other closely related genera. As expected, Aldama plastomes are very conserved, with the overall gene content and orientation being similar in all studied species. The length of the plastome is also consistent and the junction between regions usually contain the same genes and have similar lengths. A large ∼20 kb and a small ∼3 kb inversion were detected in the Large Single Copy (LSC) regions of all assembled plastomes, similarly to other Asteraceae species. The nucleotide diversity is very low, with only 1,509 variable sites in 127,466 bp (i.e., 1.18% of the sites in the alignment of 36 Aldama plastomes, with one of the IRs removed, is variable). Only one gene, rbcL, shows signatures of positive selection. The plastomes of the selected outgroups feature a similar gene content and structure compared to Aldama and also present the two inversions in the LSC region. Deletions of different lengths were observed in the gene ycf2. Multiple SSRs were identified for the sequenced Aldama and outgroups. The phylogenetic analysis shows that Aldama is not monophyletic due to the position of the Mexican species A. dentata. All Brazilian species form a strongly supported clade. Our results bring new understandings into the evolution and diversity of plastomes at the species level.

Keywords: Complete plastome, Compositae, ycf2 gene, rbcL positive selection, Species-level plastome evolution

Introduction

In the last two decades, the rise of next generation sequencing (NGS) methods have dramatically changed the field of biology. The large amount of affordable genomic data produced by NGS allows addressing biodiversity questions at a genome-wide scale (Parks, Cronn & Liston, 2009; Koboldt et al., 2013; Goodwin, McPherson & McCombie, 2016), with an unprecedented level of detail (Porter & Hajibabei, 2018; Krehenwinkel, Pomerantz & Prost, 2019). NGS methods have been applied from conservation genetics (Hunter et al., 2018; Breed et al., 2019) to the sequencing of ancient genomes (Gutaker & Burbano, 2017; Estrada et al., 2018). In plant systematics, NGS offers opportunities to investigate phylogenomic and phylogeographic processes with unparalleled precision and depth (Straub et al., 2012; Hörandl & Appelhans, 2015): either at a macroevolutionary level, mostly through inference of robust, dated phylogenies to investigate species diversification and other large-scale biodiversity patterns (e.g., Léveillé-Bourret et al., 2018; Pouchon et al., 2018; Wong et al., 2020), or at a microevolutionary level to study population dynamics (McCormack et al., 2013; Morris & Shaw, 2018).

Chloroplast genome size varies from 120 to 170 kb across angiosperms, coding for 110–130 genes (∼80 proteins, ∼30 tRNAs and four rRNAs). Chloroplast organization is especially maintained throughout land plant evolution, with two copies of an inverted repeat (IR) region that separate two regions of single-copy genes: the large and small single copy regions (LSC and SSC, respectively). Despite the conserved gene content and organization shared among plastomes in higher plant lineages, some structural changes can occur (e.g., gene and intron losses, inversions, deletions, and duplications), as well as point mutations, especially in the non-protein coding regions that account for ∼50% of the genome (Raubeson & Jansen, 2005; Ruhlman & Jansen, 2014). Therefore, this level of variability makes chloroplast sequences suitable for phylogenetic analyses (Gitzendanner et al., 2018). They have been used as phylogenetic markers due to a series of advantages: small genome size, high copy number per cell, conserved gene order, uniparental inheritance (usually maternal, rarely biparental) and lack of recombination (Raubeson & Jansen, 2005).

The inference of evolutionary relationships among land plants has relied mainly on chloroplast sequences at diverse taxonomic levels (Freitas et al., 2018; Gitzendanner et al., 2018). NGS has greatly simplified the acquisition of whole chloroplast genome sequences (Parks, Cronn & Liston, 2009; Stull et al., 2013), with more than 4,500 plastomes sequenced to date (Genbank: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/refseq/, accessed on July 2020), and recent publication of numerous plastome phylogenies (e.g., Sun et al., 2016; Givnish et al., 2018; Kuo et al., 2018; Saarela et al., 2018; Li et al., 2019). Structural changes in the chloroplast genome can also serve as powerful phylogenetic evidence, with one of the most notable examples found in the family Asteraceae. Jansen & Palmer (1987a) and Jansen & Palmer (1987b), through comparative restriction site and gene mapping studies, found a 22.8 kb inversion in the LSC region shared by all studied members of the family, except for the early-diverging lineage Barnadesieae, which was later confirmed as the sister-group to the rest of Asteraceae (Kim, Choi & Jansen, 2005; Funk et al., 2009; Mandel et al., 2019).

Asteraceae is one of the largest families of flowering plants, with 25,000–35,000 species, occurring in all continents and in nearly all types of vegetations (Mandel et al., 2019). This high species diversity is presumably linked to a series of whole genome duplications and paleopolyploidization events (Barker et al., 2008; Barker et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2016). One of these events was previously identified at the stem leading to the Heliantheae Alliance clade (Huang et al., 2016), being shortly followed by an acceleration in diversification in the phytomelanic fruit clade (i.e., all Heliantheae Alliance except the tribe Helenieae), which resulted in ∼457 genera and ∼5,500 species (Funk et al., 2009; Panero & Crozier, 2016; Mandel et al., 2019).

Aldama is a genus of the Heliantheae Alliance (Heliantheae: Helianthinae) with ∼120 species (Schilling & Panero, 2011; Magenta & Pirani, 2014), occurring in the southwestern USA and in most of South America, in mountainous regions and open vegetations. They are perennial herbs, with heads containing neutral ray florets, pappus composed by two awns and several short, deciduous or persistent squamellae (Magenta, Loeuille & Pirani, 2017). Previously to the phylogenetic analysis by Schilling & Panero (2011), the polyphyletic genus Viguiera contained most of the species currently placed in Aldama, including the 36 Brazilian species that are now placed in the latter. However, this new circumscription remains uncertain due to the small sampling of South American taxa in Schilling & Panero’s (2011) study and the absence of an unambiguous morphological synapomorphy to define Aldama. The marked incongruences among subtribal level phylogenies, either based on nuclear regions (Schilling & Panero, 2011) or those based on a chloroplast restriction site dataset (Schilling & Jansen, 1989; Schilling & Panero, 1996a), indicate that introgression has played a significant role in the evolutionary history of this group (Schilling & Panero, 1996b). Nonetheless, the low level of DNA sequence divergence, either in ribosomal or chloroplast data (Schilling et al., 2000; Schilling & Panero, 2011), has been an obstacle to a clear understanding of evolutionary relationships in Helianthinae.

The chloroplast genome of Asteraceae, except for the Barnadesieae lineage, is characterized by two inversions: the previously mentioned 22.8 kb inversion in the LSC region and a second, 3.3 kb inversion, nested within the larger one (Kim, Choi & Jansen, 2005; Timme et al., 2007). The plastome size in the family varies from 149,5 to 153,7 kb (Choi & Park, 2015; Lu et al., 2016) and the gene content is relatively conserved: from 111 to 115 different genes, including 79 to 83 protein-coding genes, four rRNAs genes, and 29–30 distinct tRNAs (Wang et al., 2015; Salih et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020). Some variations have been found in the gene structure and tRNA abundance, and in some regions the nucleotide diversity is higher than 5% (Wang et al., 2015). These more diverse regions can be used as phylogenetic markers and even to identify cryptic lineages in some cases (Wang et al., 2015; Salih et al., 2017). Several plastome phylogenies have been published recently (Pouchon et al., 2018; Cho et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019; Knope et al., 2020), two of them involving lineages of the Heliantheae Alliance (the Espeletia complex, Pouchon et al., 2018, and the genus Bidens Knope et al., 2020). These recent studies also reveal incongruence between plastid and nuclear phylogenies, likely due to the exchange of plastids between geographically close species, regardless of their morphological similarities or nuclear phylogenetic distance (Pouchon et al., 2018), or to hybridization events and/or incomplete lineage sorting (Knope et al., 2020).

With the aim to increase our comprehension of chloroplast genome characteristics, structural diversity, and evolution at low taxonomic levels in the tribe Heliantheae, we sequenced the plastome of 33 species of Aldama (Heliantheae, Asteraceae) representing a wide range of the morphological diversity in the genus. Additionally, the plastome of five species belonging to other Heliantheae genera, selected as outgroups, were also sequenced (i.e., Dimerostemma asperatum S.F. Blake, Helianthus tuberosus L., Iostephane heterophylla (Cav.) Benth., Pappobolus lanatus (Heiser) Panero var. lanatus, and Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) A. Gray). We analyzed the structure and content of the assembled plastomes, performed comparative analyses within Aldama and with other closely related genera, registered selection patterns within Aldama chloroplast genes, identified putative repeated regions, and reconstructed phylogenetic relationships.

Materials & Methods

Sampling, DNA preparation, and sequencing

We sampled 36 individuals of Aldama, representing 33 species, and one individual each of five species belonging to other Heliantheae genera, four of them from subtribe Helianthinae (Helianthus tuberosus, Iostephane heterophylla, Pappobolus lanatus var. lanatus, and Tithonia diversifolia) and one from subtribe Ecliptinae (Dimerostemma asperatum), which were selected as outgroups based on other studies (Panero, 2007; Schilling & Panero, 2011) (Table 1, Data S1). Total genomic DNA was extracted from silica-gel-dried leaves collected in the field using the commercial kit E.Z.N.A.® SQ Plant DNA Kit (Omega Bio-Tek Inc., Norcross, GA, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions except by the addition of ascorbic acid and polyvinylpyrrolidone in the SQ1 buffer. The integrity of genomic DNA was assessed by performing electrophoresis in a 1% agarose gel and DNA concentrations were measured with spectrophotometric analysis with Epoch Micro-Volume Spectrophotometer System (BioTek). DNA of each sample was diluted to a final volume of 20 µL at 2.5 ng/µL, quantified with Qubit fluorometer (Invitrogen) and used to construct Illumina Nextera libraries (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Plastome capture was carried out with a customized SureSelectXT Custom 1kb-499kb library® (Agilent Technologies) target enrichment panel, using biotinylated RNA baits developed based on the H. annuus plastome sequence (Data S2). This customized panel includes both the complete plastome and several low copy nuclear loci (unpublished data), thus ensuring high sequencing coverage. DNA library preparation, target enrichment and sequencing were carried out at Laboratório Multiusuários Centralizado (ESALQ-USP, Piracicaba - SP, Brazil). Sequencing was conducted using an Illumina HiSeq platform in paired-end mode, with 300 bp read lenght.

Table 1. Taxa, voucher, reference, GenBank accession numbers and summary of the plastomes sequenced in this study.

Species Origin/Voucher/ Herbarium GenBank (accession) Plastome length (bp) LSC length (bp) IR length (bp) SSC length (bp) Inv1 Inv2
Aldama anchusifolia (DC.) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Filartiga 8/ESA MN337902 151,330 83,717 24,633 18,347 22,360 3,298
A. arenaria 1 (Baker) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Magenta 275/SPF MN337903 151,346 83,732 24,633 18,349 22,386 3,319
A. arenaria 2 (Baker) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Magenta 383/SPF MN337904 151,345 83,735 24,632 18,346 22,367 3,309
A. aspilioides (Baker) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Filartiga 18/ESA MN337905 151,362 83,742 24,633 18,359 22,380 3,313
A. bakeriana (S.F.Blake) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Loeuille 867/SPF MN337906 151,376 83,757 24,631 18,345 22,396 3,328
A. bracteata (Gardner) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Filartiga 15/ESA MN337907 151,339 83,714 24,632 18,361 22,378 3,312
A. canescens (B.L. Rob.) E.E.Schill. & Panero Mexico/Schilling 17/TENN MN337908 151,386 83,719 24,666 18,346 22,380 3,311
A. corumbensis (Malme) Magenta & Pirani Brazil/Loeuille 909/SPF MN337909 151,327 83,720 24,632 18,342 22,372 3,309
A. dentata 1 La Llave Mexico/Schilling 331/TENN MN337910 151,303 83,635 24,665 18,353 22,350 3,308
A. dentata 2 La Llave Mexico/Schilling 333/TENN MN356024 151,336 83,680 24,664 18,345 22,355 3,302
A. discolor (Baker) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Bombo 72/ESA MN356025 151,360 83,766 24,632 18,346 22,380 3,315
A. excelsa (Willd.) E.E.Schill. & Panero Mexico/Schilling H2481/TENN MN356026 151,312 83,684 24,650 18,325 22,376 3,313
A. filifolia (Sch.Bip. ex Baker) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Loeuille 849/SPF MN337890 151,333 83,711 24,633 18,347 22,370 3,309
A. fusiformis (S.F.Blake) E.E.Schill. & Panero Peru/Siniscalchi 398/SPF MN337891 151,314 83,728 24,620 18,344 22,376 3,309
A. gardneri (Baker) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Filartiga 16/ESA MN337892 151,312 83,694 24,633 18,343 22,362 3,308
A. goyazii E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Magenta 716/SPF MN337893 151,279 83,687 24,632 18,326 22,366 3,308
A. grandiflora (Gardner) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Loeuille 750/SPF MN337894 151,353 83,761 24,633 18,326 22,368 3,309
A. kunthiana (Gardner) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Silva s.n./ESA 122873 MN337895 151,327 83,699 24,633 18,360 22,378 3,315
A. linearis (Cav.) E.E.Schill. & Panero Mexico/Schilling 70/TENN MN337896 151,314 83,665 24,667 18,334 22,379 3,307
A. macrorhiza (Baker) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Magenta 476/SPF MN337897 151,314 83,701 24,633 18,347 22,372 3,309
A. megapotamica (Malme) Magenta & Pirani Brazil/Magenta 502/SPF MN337898 151,363 83,731 24,642 18,346 22,389 3,327
A. nudibasilaris (S.F. Blake) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Filartiga 1/ESA MN337899 151,316 83,704 24,633 18,344 22,375 3,310
A. nudicaulis (Baker) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Loeuille 734/SPF MN337900 151,333 83,731 24,633 18,334 22,376 3,312
A. pilosa (Baker) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Filartiga 10/ESA MN337901 151,354 83,746 24,633 18,342 22,372 3,309
A. revoluta (Meyen) E.E.Schill. & Panero Chile/Loeuille 799/SPF MN356027 151,376 83,742 24,638 18,353 22,375 3,303
A. robusta (Gardner) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Bringel 985/UB MN356028 151,343 83,734 24,633 18,344 22,373 3,309
A. rubra (Magenta & Pirani) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Magenta 388/SPF MN356029 151,322 83,708 24,634 18,344 22,375 3,309
A. santacatarinensis (H.Rob. & A.J.Moore) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Magenta 706/SPF MN356030 151,362 83,738 24,635 18,345 22,368 3,307
A. squalida (S.Moore) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Loeuille 790/SPF MN356031 151,399 83,782 24,631 18,346 22,384 3,317
A. tenuifolia (Gardner) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Silva s.n./ESA 122870 MN356032 151,372 83,759 24,634 18,344 22,380 3,314
A. trichophylla 1 (Dusén) Magenta Brazil/Magenta 390/SPF MN337911 151,353 83,749 24,633 18,338 22,371 3,308
A. trichophylla 2 (Dusén) Magenta Brazil/Magenta 561/SPF MN311247 151,301 83,690 24,632 18,347 22,369 3,308
A. tuberosa (Griseb.) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Loeuille 719/SPF MN356033 151,323 83,715 24,634 18,338 22,376 3,309
A. tucumanensis (Hook. & Arn.) E.E.Schill. & Panero Argentina/Heiden 1837/SPF MN356034 151,336 83,724 24,634 18,342 22,375 3,314
A. veredensis (Magenta & Pirani) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Loeuille 921/SPF MN356035 151,331 83,715 24,632 18,350 22,373 3,308
A. vernonioides (Baker) E.E.Schill. & Panero Brazil/Magenta 460/SPF MN356036 151,221 83,676 24,607 18,329 22,366 3,309
Outgroups
Dimerostemma asperatum S.F.Blake Brazil/Siniscalchi 440/SPF MT700540 151,862 84,107 24,704 18,347 22,472 3,295
Helianthus tuberosus L. Chile/Loeuille 793/SPF MT700541 151,242 83,634 24,632 18,344 22,411 3,312
Iostephane heterophylla (Cav.) Benth. Mexico/Schilling 94/TENN MT700542 151,495 83,812 24,640 18,317 22,396 3,305
Pappobolus lanatus var. lanatus (Heiser) Panero Peru/Siniscalchi 386/SPF MT700543 151,358 83,702 24,647 18,343 22,370 3,312
Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) A.Gray Brazil/Loeuille 678/SPF MT700544 151,356 83,667 24,645 18,372 22,388 3,313

Plastome assembly and annotation

Sequence quality was initially evaluated with FastQC 0.11.9 (Andrews, 2010) and trimmed for quality and contaminants with Trimmomatic (Bolger, Lohse & Usadel, 2014), using the SLIDINGWINDOW mode with a 5-base wide window and quality cut off of 20, dropping reads shorter than 36 bp. Due to the availability of a published chloroplast genome from a closely related taxon, Helianthus. annuus (GenBank accession NC_007977; Timme et al., 2007), we opted for using reference assembly. This strategy also allows the assembly of off-target reads containing parts of the plastome sequence. The Bowtie2 plugin in Geneious (Langmead & Salzberg, 2012) was used to index the reference genome and to match the reads obtained from sequencing back to the reference genome. BAM files generated by Bowtie2 were used to calculate coverage of the sequencing with Samtools, using the “samtools depth” tool (Li et al., 2009), which gives the sequencing depth for each position in the final assembly. Basic statistics were used to summarize the coverage value for each taxon. Consensus sequences generated by the assembly were used for annotation and analysis.

Chloroplast genome annotations were carried out using Geneious 9.1.5 (Kearse et al., 2012), DOGMA (Wyman, Jansen & Boore, 2004), and BLAST (Altschul, Gish & Miller, 1990; Altschul et al., 1997). Open Reading Frames (ORFs) were confirmed by manually searching start and stop codons. The plastome of Aldama trichophylla was the first to be annotated, using H. annuus (GenBank accession NC_007977; Timme et al., 2007) as reference. This Aldama reference was subsequently used to annotate the remaining plastomes. The graphical illustration of the A. trichophylla annotated plastome was built in OGDRAW (Lohse et al., 2013). The junction sites between the LSC/IRa/SSC/IRb regions were manually determined in Geneious, with complete annotations for adjacent genes. The boundaries between the plastomes of one species representative of each genus sequenced in this study were plotted in IRscope (Amiryousefi, Hyvönen & Poczai, 2018; https://irscope.shinyapps.io/irapp/). All 41 newly-sequenced chloroplast genomes were submitted to GenBank (Table 1).

Comparative analyses of chloroplast genomes

We performed comparative analyses among Aldama species and between Aldama and the five Heliantheae outgroup taxa. To avoid data duplication, one copy of the IRs of all chloroplast genomes was manually removed in all analyses.

Synteny and possible rearrangements were determined and identified through the comparison of the A. trichophylla plastome sequence with those from the five other Heliantheae genera. This analysis was completed in Mauve 2.4.0 (Darling, Mau & Perna, 2010, http://wolfe.gen.tcd.ie/GenomeVx), using progressiveMauve and MUSCLE 3.6 (Edgar, 2004) as alignment algorithm and internal aligner, respectively, with minimum locally collinear block (LCB) score and full alignment calculated automatically. We did not consider the plastomes to be collinear.

We aligned the 36 Aldama plastome sequences using the FFT-NS-2 method (Katoh et al., 2002) in MAFFT 7 (Katoh & Standley, 2013). This alignment was used to calculate the intrageneric nucleotide variability values (π) (Nei & Li, 1979). The π values were also calculated in a second dataset, using three Aldama species (A. anchusifolia, A. dentata2, A. trichophylla), the five genera from tribe Heliantheae sequenced in this study and three extra outgroups obtained from GenBank (Echinacea paradoxa (NC_034320), H. annuus (NC_007977), H. argophyllus (KU314500)). The sliding window analysis was performed in DnaSP 6.10 (Rozas et al., 2017) using a step size of 200 bp with window length of 800 bp. The π values were plotted using R (R Development Core Team, 2017). Percentage and total number of variable sites were estimated across Aldama plastomes using MEGA 7 (Kumar, Stecher & Tamura, 2016). 79 protein-coding genes were extracted from the 36 Aldama plastomes: i.e., accD, atpA, B, E, F, H, I, ccsA, cemA, clpP, infA, matK, ndh A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, petA, B, D, G, L, N, psaA, B, C, I, J, psbA, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, T, Z, rbcL, rpl2, 14, 16, 20, 22, 23, 32, 33, 36, rpoA, B, C1, C2, rps2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, ycf1, 2, 3, and 4. Each gene was separately aligned considering codon positions in Geneious, with the ClustalW plugin translation alignment tool (Larkin et al., 2007). MEGA 7 was used to estimate the number of variable sites within each of the 79 protein-coding genes. Based on the sequence alignment with 36 complete Aldama genomes, the ten most divergent plastomes were selected as representatives of the genus (i.e., A. canescens, A. dentata 2, A. excelsa, A. filifolia, A. grandiflora, A. linearis, A. macrorhiza, A. trichophylla, A. rubra and A. veredensis) and realigned in MAFFT as described above. We used mVISTA (Frazer et al., 2004) in Shuffle-LAGAN mode (Brudno et al., 2003) to identify variable regions within the genus by comparing these ten selected Aldama plastomes. To facilitate result visualization, in a second step, the procedure was repeated with three species of Aldama from different clades, selected according to the phylogeny inferred here (see results below; A. anchusifolia, A. dentata 2 and A. trichophylla), and the five other Heliantheae genera sequenced in this study. The annotated plastome of A. trichophylla was used as reference in both analyses.

Selection on plastid genes

To investigate the presence positive selection signatures on the 79 plastid coding regions, Selecton 2.2 (Stern et al., 2007; http://selecton.tau.ac.il/index.html) was used to analyze the ratio of synonymous (Ks; silent) and non-synonymous (Ka; amino-acid altering) substitutions in the codon alignments for each region described above. We used the M8 (positive selection enabled; Yang et al., 2000) and M8a (null model; Swanson, Nielsen & Yang, 2003) models and likelihood scores were compared by a chi-square test with one degree of freedom. Results were considered significant when the probability was lower than 0.01.

Simple sequence repeat analyses

Identification of microsatellites or Simple Sequence Repeats (SSRs; i.e., tandem repeats of short, 1–6 bp-long DNA motifs) were performed using MISA (Beier et al., 2017) in the plastomes of the ten most divergent Aldama species (listed above) as representatives of the genus and of the five other Heliantheae genera sequenced in this study. Search for SSRs followed the following criteria: motif length between one and six nucleotides, with a minimum number of repetitions set as ten, five, and four units for mono-, di-, and trinucleotide SSRs, respectively, and three units each for tetra-, penta-, and hexanucleotide SSRs.

Phylogenetic reconstruction

We reconstructed phylogenetic relationships among plastomes of 36 Aldama and using the five other Heliantheae species assembled here as outgroup. The FFT-NS-2 method (Katoh et al., 2002) in MAFFT 7 (Katoh & Standley, 2013) was used to align all plastomes with one of the IRs removed to avoid data duplication. The ML analysis was conducted in RAxML 8.2.9 (Stamakis, 2014) using the GTR+G model with node support assessed by fast-bootstrap (-f a) using 1,000 non-parametric bootstrap pseudo-replicates.

Results

Assembly and characteristics of the chloroplast genomes

The average read depth ranged between 1,431×and 5,037×(A. nudicaulis and A. tuberosa, respectively; Table S1). The 36 Aldama plastomes range in length from 151,221 (A. vernonioides) to 151,399 bp (A. squalida) (Table 1 and Fig. 1). The assembled plastomes include some missing data and very few degenerate bases. However, very few of these sites were found within coding regions, not significantly impacting other analyses performed here (see Tables S2 and S3). All chloroplast genomes show the typical quadripartite structure of angiosperms, consisting of a large single copy (LSC) region (83,635–83,782 bp); a small single copy (SSC) region (18,325–18,361 bp); and a pair of inverted repeat (IRs) regions (24,607–24,667 bp). The length of the plastomes of the five outgroup species from Heliantheae range from 151,242 bp (H. tuberosus) to 151,862 bp (D. asperatum), with a LSC between 83,634 bp (H. tuberosus) and 84,107 bp (D. asperatum), SSC ranging from 18,317 bp (I. heterophylla) to 18,372 bp (T. diversifolia), and a pair of IRs with length between 24,632 bp (H. tuberosus) and 24,704 bp (D. asperatum). All assembled plastomes feature a large ∼20 kb and a small, nested, ∼3 kb inversion in the LSC region, shared by other Asteraceae species (Kim, Choi & Jansen, 2005). The large inversion within the Aldama plastomes ranges from 22,350 to 22,396 bp, including 16 genes from trnS-GCU-trnC-GCA to trnG-UCC-trnT-GGU. The small inversion, with length between 3,298 and 3,328 bp, includes six genes located between trnS-GCU-trnC-GCA and trnE-UUC (Table 1 and Fig. 1). The GC content in all assembled plastomes was 37.6%. The 41 sequenced plastomes encode 113 unique genes, including 79 protein-coding genes (CDS), 30 tRNA genes, and four rRNA genes (Table 2). The IRs of all plastomes present six CDS, seven tRNA genes, and four rRNA genes, duplicated. The plastomes assembled in this study include 17 intron-containing genes, of which 14 contain one intron, while three genes contain two introns (i.e., clpP, rps12, ycf3) (Table 2 and Fig. 1). The rps12 gene is trans-spliced, with the 5′end located in the LSC region and the duplicated 3′end in the IR regions. The LSC/IRs/SSC boundaries are very conserved within Aldama species and among other Heliantheae genera sampled in this study. The LSC/IRb boundary is within rps19, the IRb/SSC boundary is within ycf1, the SSC/IRa is between ndhF and a partial ycf1 (ψycf1), and the IRa/LSC is between a truncated rps19 (†rps19) and trnH (Figs. 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Gene map of the Aldama trichophylla plastome representing the genus Aldama and the plastomes of other five Heliantheae genera, which present the same general structure and gene content.

Figure 1

Genes drawn inside the circle are transcribed clockwise, and those outside are transcribed counterclockwise. Genes belonging to different functional groups are colored following the legend. The darker and lighter gray in the inner circle correspond to GC content and AT content, respectively.

Table 2. Genes encoded by the Aldama species, Dimerostemma asperatum, Iostephane heterophylla, Pappobolus lanatus var. lanatus, and Tithonia diversifolia plastomes.

Gene function Gene type Gene
Self-replication •Ribosomal RNA genes
(GO:0006364)
rrn4.5c, rrn5c, rrn16c, rrn23c
•Transfer RNA genes
(GO:0061587)
trnA-UGCa,c, trnC-GCA, trnD-GUC, trnE-UUC, trnF-GAA, trnfM-CAU, trnG-GCC, trnG-UCCa, trnH-GUG, trnI-CAUc, trnI-GAUa,c, trnK-UUUa, trnL-CAAc, trnL-UAAa, trnL-UAG, trnM-CAU, trnN-GUUc, trnP-UGG, trnQ-UUG, trnR-ACG, trnR-UCUc, trnS-GCU, trnS-GGA, trnS-UGA, trnT-GGU, trnT-UGU, trnV-GACc, trnV-UACa, trnW-CCA, trnY-GUA
•Small ribosomal subunit
(GO:0015935)
rps2, rps3, rps4, rps7c, rps8, rps11, rps12b,c, rps14, rps15, rps16a, rps18, rps19d
•Large ribosomal subunit
(GO:0015934)
rpl2a,c, rpl14, rpl16, rpl20, rpl22, rpl23a,c, rpl32, rpl33, rpl36
•RNA polymerase subunits
(GO:0042793)
rpoA, rpoB, rpoC1a, rpoC2
Photosynthesis •Photosystem I
(GO:0009522)
psaA, psaB, psaC, psaI, psaJ, ycf3b, ycf4
•Photosystem II
(GO:0009523)
psbA, psbB, psbC, psbD, psbE, psbF, psbH, psbI, psbJ, psbK, psbL, psbM, psbN, psbT, psbZ
•NADH-dehydrogenase
(GO:0010258)
ndhAa, ndhBa,c, ndhC, ndhD, ndhE, ndhF, ndhG, ndhH, ndhI, ndhJ, ndhK
•Cytochrome b6/f complex
(GO:0017004)
petA, petBa, petDa, petG, petL, petN
•ATP synthase
(GO:0009544)
atpA, atpB, atpE, atpFa, atpH, atpI
•Rubisco
(GO:0110102)
rbcL
Other genes •Translational initiator factor
(GO:0006413)
infA
•Maturase
(GO:0006397)
matK
•Protease
(GO:0006508)
clpPb
•Envelope membrane protein
(GO:0009279)
cemA
•Subunit of Acetil-CoA-carboxylase
(GO:0003989)
accD
•c-type cytochrome synthesis
(GO:1903606)
ccsA
Unknown function •Conserved open read frames ycf1d, ycf2c, ycf15c

Notes.

a

Gene with one intron.

b

Gene with two introns.

c

Gene duplicated.

d

Gene partially duplicated.

Figure 2. Comparisons of the Large Single Copy, Inverted Repeat a, Small Single Copy, and Inverted Repeat b boundaries among Aldama trichophylla and the other five Heliantheae representatives.

Figure 2

Genes shown below the lines are transcribed reversely and those shown above are transcribed forward. Minimum and maximum sizes for the regions and structures of each plastome type that compose the borders are indicated in base pairs (bp).

Identification of variable regions

A single synteny block was retrieved from the structural analysis performed in Mauve (Fig. S1). The plastomes of A. trichophylla and five other Heliantheae genera show the same structure and linear order.

Levels of sequence diversity were investigated through the calculation of nucleotide variability (π) values within the 36 Aldama plastomes (Fig. 3A), among three Aldama species (A. anchusifolia, A. dentata 2 and A. trichophylla) and other Heliantheae sequenced in this study or obtained from GenBank (D. asperatum, E. paradoxa, H. annuus, H. argophyllus, H. tuberosus, I. heterophylla, P. lanatus var. lanatus and T. diversifolia) (Fig. 3B). The π values within 800 bp across the plastomes range from 0 to 0.00754 (mean value of 0.00118) within Aldama species and from 0 to 0.0305 (mean value of 0.00860) among three Aldama species and the other genera, indicating that these sequences are very conserved, especially at the intrageneric level. The most variable sites within Aldama plastomes are within the petA-psbJ intergenic region (π between 0.00754 and 0.00613) and only three sites present π >0.004, which are ndhE-psaC, ycf1, and petN-psbM (Fig. 3A). The most variable sites among three Aldama species and the other genera are within the trnL-UAG-rpl32 and rpl32-ndhF intergenic regions (π between 0.0305 and 0.02936). Further variable sites with π >0.020 are located within the ycf1 gene and in other intergenic regions, such as trnE-UUC-rpoB, trnT-GGU-psbD, ycf3-trnS-GCU and petA-psbJ (Fig. 3B). In both datasets, the IRs are the most conserved regions (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Sliding window analysis of complete plastomes.

Figure 3

(A) within the 36 Aldama samples and (B) among three Aldama species (Aldama anchusifolia, A. dentata, A. trichophylla) plus outgroups of Heliantheae sequenced in this study and obtained from GenBank: Pappobolus lanatus, Tithonia diversifolia, Helianthus tuberosus, Iostephane heterophylla, Dimerostemma asperatum, Echinaceae paradoxa (NC_034320), Helianthus argophyllus (NU314500), and Helianthus annuus (NC_007977) (window length: 800 bp, step size: 200 bp). X-axis, position of the midpoint of each window; Y-axis, nucleotide diversity (π) of each window. (C–D) Twenty-seven most variable protein-coding genes within the 36 Aldama plastomes assembled. (C) percentage of variable sites according to gene length. (D) Number of variable sites per gene.

The alignment of the 36 complete Aldama plastomes (with one of the IRs removed) has 127,466 bp with 1,508 variable sites (i.e., 1.18% of variable sites). In addition, the noncoding regions are more variable (i.e., 1.66% of the intergenic regions) than the coding regions (0.73% of the protein-coding genes) (Table 3).

Table 3. Summary of datasets including only the 36 Aldama plastomes.

Dataset Length (bp) Var. sites Var. sites % Pi sites GC%
Plastomes (LSC/IR/SSC) 127,466 1,509 1.18 814 36.7
79 genes 67,626 497 0.73 285 37.8
Intergenic regions 61,290 1,016 1.66 531 35.2
Introns 11,954 158 1.32 83 34.3

Notes.

Var. sites
number of variable sites
Var. sites%
percentage of variable sites
Pi sites
parsimony informative sites
GC%
percentage of GC content

Among the 79 protein-coding genes, the genes with the highest percentage of variable sites are presented in Fig. 3C and Table S4. Regarding absolute numbers, the genes with more than 10 variable sites are presented in Fig. 3D and Table S4.

Pairwise comparisons of divergent regions within the 10 selected Aldama plastomes (i.e., A. canescens, A. dentata 2, A. excelsa, A. filifolia, A. grandiflora, A. linearis, A. macrorhiza, A. trichophylla, A. rubra and A. veredensis) and among three species of Aldama (i.e., A. anchusifolia, A. dentata 2 and A. trichophylla) and five plastomes from other Heliantheae genera sequenced in this study were performed using mVISTA, with A. trichophylla as a reference (Fig. 4 and Fig. S2). Overall, the alignments reveal very low intra- and inter-generic (Fig. 4) sequence divergence across the plastomes, suggesting high degree of conservation. Noncoding regions and introns are generally more divergent than coding regions (Fig. 4 and Fig. S2).

Figure 4. Comparison of three species of Aldama (i.e., A. anchusifolia, A. dentata, and A. trichophylla) and the five plastomes from other Heliantheae genera sequenced in this study performed in mVISTA.

Figure 4

The plastome of A. trichophylla was used as reference. Dark blue blocks indicate conserved genes (CNS), light blue blocks indicate conserved introns (UTR), and red blocks indicate conserved noncoding sequences (CNS). White blocks represent regions with sequence variation among the plastomes. The vertical axis indicates sequence alignment similarity of 50–100%.

Selection on plastid genes

The analyses performed in Selecton to explore selection pressure on the 79 protein-coding genes within Aldama plastomes showed that only one gene, rbcL, has signatures of positive selection (adaptive selection), with only two sites out of 486 with omega values (ω) lower than 1, at a significance level of 0.01 for two positions (Data S3).

SSR analyses

Six kinds of repeat patterns were screened and identified using MISA in the plastomes of the 10 selected Aldama species listed above and the five other Heliantheae genera sequenced in this study. In Aldama plastomes, the total number of SSRs ranges from 47 to 57 SSRs, while in the other genera it varies from 38 (D. asperatum) to 56 (I. heterophylla) (Fig. 5A and Table S5). The most frequent SSRs are A or T mononucleotide repeats, accounting for 68–73.2% of the total SSRs in Aldama plastomes and for 60.5–75.5% in the other genera; G or C repeats, on the other hand, are rare (Fig. 5C and Table S5). The total number of SSR motifs in Aldama range between 34–44 (70–77.2%) mononucleotide repeats, 5 dinucleotide repeats in all species (8.8–10.6%), 3–5 (6–10%) trinucleotide repeats, 4–5 (7–10.2%) tetranucleotide repeats, and 0–1 (0–1.9%) hexanucleotide repeats; no pentanucleotide repeat was found (Fig. 5C and Table S5). Moreover, most (37–45) of the SSRs in Aldama species are located in the LSC. In Aldama, the IR regions include between 1–3 SSRs, while the SSC region includes between 8–10 (Fig. 5B and Table S5). In the other genera sequenced here, 28–45 of the SSRs are situated in the LSC, 0–2 in the IRs, and 8–9 in the SSC region (Figs. 5B5C and Table S5). The density of SSRs in the LSC is somewhat similar to that found in the SSC when considering the size of each plastome region.

Figure 5. (A–B) Distribution of SSRs in the Aldama and the five plastomes from other Heliantheae genera sequenced in this study (IRa omitted). (C) Distribution of SSR types.

Figure 5

.

Phylogenetic reconstruction

The final alignment with the 41 taxa sequenced here (i.e., 36 Aldama species and 5 Helianthinae representatives as outgroups) is 129,218 bp long, of which 4,544 are variable sites and 1,089 are parsimony informative sites. In the ML tree (Fig. 6, bootstrap values (BS) depicted in the tree) Aldama is not monophyletic due to the position of the Mexican A. dentata as sister-group of T. diversifolia (BS: 98%), while all other Aldama species form a well-supported clade (BS: 99%). In this latter clade, Mexican and Andean species are the first to diverge (A. linearis, A. excelsa, A. canescens and A. revoluta). All Brazilian species form a strongly supported clade (BS: 99%), but internal relationships are poorly resolved due to the low nucleotide diversity found among Aldama plastomes, resulting in very short branches.

Figure 6. Phylogenetic relationships of 36 Aldama species and five species from other Heliantheae genera as outgroup based on complete chloroplast genomes, with one of the IRs removed.

Figure 6

Branches are labeled with bootstrap values above 75% from the ML analysis. Vertical bar indicates geographic distribution, yellow, Mexico, red, Andean region, purple, Brazil and black, widespread.

Discussion

Plastome features

In this study, we sequenced and assembled 36 complete plastomes of 33 Aldama species and the plastome of five other genera from the tribe Heliantheae. Even though the sequences present a number of gaps and degenerate bases, this did not affect the genetic diversity and selection analyses, as they account for a small proportion of sites in relation to the total length of each genome. In addition, coding regions were less affected by these issues, with 0.006% of missing data and zero ambiguous sites (Tables S2 and S3). The basic features of these plastomes are highly similar to those found in other Asteraceae species, including the LSC inversions that are present in nearly all members of the family. Our results show that the plastomes are highly conserved in size, GC content, number of genes and gene order (Wang et al., 2015; Salih et al., 2017). Size variation between the smallest (A. vernonioides) and largest (A. squalida) Aldama plastomes is very low (178 bp) (Table 1). This is similar to the variation found between the plastomes of different species of Atractylodes (60 bp; Wang et al., 2020), Echinacea (98 bp; Zhang et al., 2017), Dendrosenecio (59 bp; Gichira et al., 2019), Dolomiaea (179 bp; Shen et al., 2020) and Senecio (209 bp) (Gichira et al., 2019), but greatly inferior to the variation found between 20 Saussurea species (1,148 bp; Zhang et al., 2019). Among genera in Heliantheae, D. asperatum, from subtribe Ecliptinae, presents the largest genome, exceeding the smallest one (A. vernonioides) by only 641 bp. Among members of subtribe Helianthinae, the size difference is even smaller (274 bp) (Table 1). Higher variation in size was found among members of other tribes, such as Cardueae (1,138 kb; Zhang et al., 2019) and Senecioneae (865 bp; Gichira et al., 2019). No significant expansions of the IRs (60 bp) or contractions of the LSC (147 bp) have been detected among Aldama species, or among the Heliantheae genera (IRs: 97 bp.; LSC: 472 bp) (Table 1 and Fig. 1). Expansions of the IRs and contractions of the LSC are frequent in Asterids (e.g., Downie & Jansen, 2015; Firetti et al., 2017; Thode & Lohmann, 2019), but were not observed at the generic level in our results or in other studies in Asteraceae (Zhang et al., 2017; Cho et al., 2019; Gichira et al., 2019; Shahzadi et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2019), except for a recent study in the genus Aster (Tyagi et al., 2020). The IR/SC boundaries are highly conserved in all Aldama and Heliantheae genera sequenced in this study (Fig. 2). Positions of these boundaries are very constant in Asteraceae (Wang et al., 2015). Some variation has been found at the IRb/SSC boundary in the tribe Cardueae and in Aster (within ycf1 or between the genes ycf1 and ndhF) (Zhang et al., 2019; Tyagi et al., 2020), but we observed conserved borders within ycf1 in Aldama and the Heliantheae genera.

In all plastomes studied here (33 species of Aldama and five Heliantheae genera), 18 genes are duplicated. Like in nearly all Asteraceae, there are seven tRNA genes and four rRNA genes located in the IR regions (Wang et al., 2015). Similar to all Angiosperms, the rps12 gene was found to be trans-spliced (one of its exons located in the LSC region and the other duplicated in the IRs) (Howe et al., 2003). Duplication of the trnF-GAA gene has probably occurred several times in the evolutionary history of Asteraceae, in different subfamilies (Carduoideae, Cichorioideae and Asteroideae) (Salih et al., 2017). We did not detect the trnF-GAA gene duplication in the Aldama species and Heliantheae genera assembled here, as previously seen in other taxa of Heliantheae, such as H. annuus (Timme et al., 2007) and Echinacea (Zhang et al., 2017). Nonetheless, this duplication was reported for Lasthenia burkeyi (Heliantheae, subtribe Madieae) (Walker, Zanis & Emery, 2014). Three other frequent duplications in Asteraceae (ndhB, rpl2 and rpl23; all located in the IR regions) (Timme et al., 2007; Salih et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017; Cho et al., 2019; Tyagi et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020) were observed in our results. Another frequently duplicated gene in Asteraceae, ycf15, was detected in Aldama and the Heliantheae genera sequenced here, as observed in H. annuus (Timme et al., 2007), Echinacea (Zhang et al., 2017) and Aster (Tyagi et al., 2020), but its complete absence was reported in some species of Chrysanthemum (tribe Anthemideae) (Wang et al., 2015) and Guizotia abyssinica (tribe Millerieae) (Dempewolf et al., 2010) (Table 2).

The largest plastid gene in the Angiosperms, ycf2, displays a ∼456 bp deletion in Helianthus species, which does not seem to affect its functionality (Timme et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2019), even though its vital function remains unknown (Drescher et al., 2000). Such partial deletion in ycf2 has also been observed in Poaceae (Millen et al., 2001; Matsuoka et al., 2002). We found a slightly smaller deletion in all Aldama species, with size varying from 441 bp (most species) to 447 bp (in two species), similar to the values found in species of Helianthus (Zhang et al., 2019). The same 441 bp deletion in ycf2 was found in the three taxa of subtribe Helianthinae (I. heterophylla, P. lanatus var. lanatus and T. diversifolia) and in Dimerostemma, from subtribe Ecliptinae, even though this deletion is absent in the plastome of another member of this subtribe, Eclipta prostata (Park et al., 2016). The deletion in ycf2 is absent in species of Echinacea, from subtribe Zinniinae (Zhang et al., 2017). These results indicate that the deletion in ycf2 is not an unique event in the evolutionary history of Heliantheae, as it is not restricted to the derived taxa of subtribe Helianthinae (Schilling & Jansen, 1989), also occurring in subtribe Ecliptinae. However, the current knowledge about phylogenetic relationships among Heliantheae subtribes (Panero, 2007) is insufficient to understand the evolution of ycf2 within the tribe.

The conservation of plastome features has been recorded in several Angiosperm groups (Cai et al., 2015; Reginato et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2019; Yan et al., 2019) and our results corroborate that plastomes are highly conserved in Asteraceae, even at the generic or subtribal level, in size, GC content, number of genes and gene order (Wang et al., 2015; Salih et al., 2017; Shen et al., 2020).

Variable regions

The plastomes of Aldama and other genera of Heliantheae studied here display very low intrageneric and intergeneric sequence divergence. Noncoding regions and introns are slightly more divergent than coding regions and the IRs are the most conserved regions (Figs. 3 and 4 and Fig. S1Fig. S2). Among Aldama plastomes, the petA-psbJ intergenic region is the most variable locus and only three other regions have some significant variability: ndhE-psaC, petN-psbM and ycf1 (Fig. 4A). The intergenic region petA-psbJ is rarely used in phylogenetic inferences (e.g., Huang et al., 2004; Techaprasan et al., 2010), and has never been used in Asteraceae. Shaw et al. (2007) and Shaw et al. (2014) pointed out this region as one of the most variable within the chloroplast genome across angiosperm lineages, including among closely related species of Aster (Tyagi et al., 2020). Dong et al. (2012) suggested it as a potential candidate for DNA barcoding and phylogenies in lower taxonomic levels. The noncoding region ndhE-psaC has never been used in phylogenetic inference and has only been cited as a hypervariable region in monocots (Lu, Li & Qiu, 2017; Santana Lopes et al., 2018; Cui et al., 2019). The petN-psbM intergenic spacer was reported as a variable region in Asteraceae once, in Echinacea, another genus of Heliantheae (Zhang et al., 2017), and Shaw et al. (2014) described it as a potential variable region in specific groups (e.g., Fonseca & Lohmann, 2017). In a similar way to other intergenic regions that evolve rapidly, minute inversions have already been noted in petN-psbM, requiring some care when aligning it (Kim & Lee, 2005; Dong et al., 2012).

While coding regions normally accumulate genetic differences more slowly than non-coding regions (Fazekas et al., 2008; Lahaye et al., 2008), one exception is the gene ycf1, which evolves at a faster pace (Dong et al., 2012; Shaw et al., 2014). This region is frequently cited as one of the most variable in Asteraceae plastomes (Wang et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2017; Cho et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020) but seems to have been used as a marker only once, in a phylogenetic study within the tribe Astereae (Costa, 2014). Nonetheless, ycf1 was successfully used in phylogenetic inferences of other angiosperm groups, such as Fabaceae (e.g., Dastpak et al., 2018) and orchids (e.g., Neubig et al., 2009). Dong et al. (2015) concluded that ycf1 can serve as a core barcode for land plants. Regarding the percentage of variable sites (in proportion to sequence length), ycf1 is the most variable coding region, followed by rpl32 (Fig. 3C and Table S4). When considering absolute numbers, rpoC2 has the highest number of sites, followed by ycf1 (Fig. 3D and Table S4). The rpl32 gene is rarely cited in Asteraceae as a variable region (Timme et al., 2007) and, due to its small size (165 bp), the region has never been used in phylogenetic inferences. The rpo genes, which code for RNA polymerase subunits, are relatively rapidly evolving genes (Krawczyk & Sawicki, 2013). Other studies in Asteraceae (Salih et al., 2017; Cho et al., 2019) also pointed out rpoC2 as a variable region and Wang et al. (2015) found some species-specific editing sites in Lactuca sativa, suggesting lineage specific evolutionary features of RNA editing for that region. While rpoC2 has not been used for phylogenetic inference in Asteraceae, its utility was demonstrated in other Angiosperm families like Poaceae (Peterson, Romaschenko & Arrieta, 2016) and Verbenaceae (Marx et al., 2010). In addition, Logacheva et al. (2017) concluded that rpo genes might be very useful for phylogenetic reconstructions. As a whole, the nucleotide composition among Aldama species is very conserved, with a percentage of variable sites (1.18%) somewhat lower than that found in the Espeletia species complex (2.46%; Pouchon et al., 2018), among species of Saussurea (4.07%; Zhang et al., 2019) and in Hawaiian species of Bidens (4.8%; Knope et al., 2020), but similar to Echinacea (<1%; Zhang et al., 2017).

When comparing the plastomes of the five genera of Heliantheae with three species of Aldama, the variability found is a little bit higher. The most variable regions are the gene ycf1 and two intergenic regions, trnL-UAG-rpl32 and rpl32-ndhF (Fig. 3B). These two intergenic regions have been widely reported as the most divergent regions across Angiosperm lineages (Shaw et al., 2007; Dong et al., 2012; Shaw et al., 2014), especially rpl32-ndhF in Asteraceae (Timme et al., 2007; Salih et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017; Gichira et al., 2019, Shahzadi et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019; Nie et al., 2020) and less frequently trnL-UAG-rpl32 (Timme et al., 2007; Cho et al., 2019; Shahzadi et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2020). Numerous phylogenies in Asteraceae used trnL-UAG-rpl32 as a molecular marker (e.g., Freire et al., 2015; Loeuille, Keeley & Pirani, 2015; Loeuille et al., 2015; Padin, Calviño & Ezcurra, 2015; Soto-Trejo et al., 2015; Jara-Arancio, Vidal & Arroyo, 2018; Oberprieler et al., 2019), sometimes associated with ndhF-rpl32 (Dillenberg & Kadereit, 2013; Steffen, Dillenberger & Kadereit, 2016; Gutiérrez-Larruscain et al., 2018; Gerschwitz-Eidt & Kadereit, 2019).

Signature of positive selection in plastid genes

The present study indicates that among the 79 protein-coding genes within Aldama, only the gene rbcL is significantly under positive selection (ω >1). It encodes for the larger subunit of the enzyme rubisco, which catalyzes the first step in photosynthetic assimilation of inorganic carbon and photorespiration (Spreitzer & Salvucci, 2002; Feller, Anders & Mae, 2008; Bathellier et al., 2018; Erb & Zarzycki, 2018; Pottier, Gilis & Boutry, 2018). Purifying selection has been frequently reported in Asteraceae for most of the plastidial protein-coding genes (Shahzadi et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019). The gene ndhF was shown to be under positive selection in Aster (Tyagi et al., 2020) and in Dolomiaea (Shen et al., 2020), along with atpA and rbcL in the latter. Zhang et al. (2019) found positive selection for ycf2 in Helianthus, but contrary to the expectation, we did not detect a positive selection signature in Aldama. The extremely low nucleotide diversity observed among chloroplast sequences might compromise our capacity to detect that signal.

Positive selection for rbcL is widespread among land plants (Kapralov & Filatov, 2007; Yao et al., 2019; Shen et al., 2020) and several studies have demonstrated that positive selection on specific amino-acids in rubisco is linked to plant adaptation to different environmental stresses, facilitating adaptive radiation into diverse ecological niches (Hermida-Carrera et al., 2017). Examples include adaptations to dry or wet climates (Kapralov & Filatov, 2006; Galmés et al., 2014), to high altitude environments (Hu et al., 2015) and in transitions from C3 to C4 photosynthesis (Christin et al., 2008; Kapralov, Smith & Filatov, 2012; Hermida-Carrera et al., 2020), including in Flaveria (Asteraceae, tribe Tageteae) (Kapralov et al., 2011).

SSRs in Aldama plastomes

Single Sequence Repeats (SSRs) are often observed in chloroplast genomes, being useful markers for evolutionary studies in lower taxonomic levels, such as population genetics (Avise, 1994; Ebert & Peakall, 2009; Qi et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2017). The SSRs most frequently found in chloroplast genomes are poly-A tails, usually also being the ones showing more variability. As NGS methods became cheaper and more popular, the in silico mining of microsatellite has become more common, with the advantage of easily separating organellar repeats from nuclear repeats when mapping against a reference genome. Recent papers dealing with the development of SSR markers in Asteraceae from chloroplast genomes have shown very little variability in the tested loci, especially when excluding mononucleotide repeats (Siniscalchi et al., 2019; Thapa, Bayer & Mandel, 2019).

The SSRs regions presented here can be used as basis for future population genetic studies involving Aldama, although their variability needs to be validated in different populations (Figs. 6A6C). The fact that several repeat regions are present in more than one species is a good indication that they could be easily transferable across the genus, being useful for multi-species studies. While several Brazilian species complexes within Aldama have been the focus of detailed anatomical and phytochemical studies (Bombo et al., 2012; Bombo et al., 2014; Silva & Appezzato-da Glória, 2014; Bombo, Filartiga & Appezzato-Da-Glória, 2016; Filartiga et al., 2016; Filartiga et al., 2017), populational studies based on these SSRs would greatly improve the understanding of population dynamics and microevolutionary processes in these species.

Phylogenetic hypothesis

Our phylogenetic analysis indicates that in the current circumscription, Aldama is not monophyletic, as A. dentata is more closely related to other Mexican and Andean genera (Pappobolus and Tithonia) than to the rest of the Aldama species (Fig. 6). This result is in agreement with plastidial restriction site analysis (Schilling & Panero, 1996a) but not with ribosomal ITS and ETS phylogenetic analyses (Schilling & Panero, 2011). More studies are necessary to understand if this incongruence between plastome and nuclear data is a consequence of an evolutionary history of hybridization and chloroplast capture in the Helianthinae (Schilling & Panero, 1996b) or an artefact of the low taxonomic sampling of Mexican Helianthinae in our analysis.

The Mexican Aldama species are early diverging lineages, while all South American members of Aldama form a strongly supported clade. Nonetheless, the relationships between the Brazilian and Andean species are poorly resolved due to the extremely low nucleotide diversity (Fig. 6).

Conclusions

The analyses comparing 36 Aldama plastomes and the plastomes of five other genera belonging to Heliantheae provided significant new understanding about Asteraceae plastome evolution and structure. Within Aldama and among the other genera compared here, plastomes show very similar lengths, number of genes, and boundaries between the regions. The nucleotide variability was extremely low at the intrageneric level. Our results show that plastomes may be extremely conserved and not suited for phylogenetic analysis at the intrageneric level. Our results also shed light on a more complex evolution of the large deletion in the ycf2 gene in Heliantheae, which was probably gradual and involved multiple events. Signals of positive selection detected in the rbcL gene in Aldama raise an interesting question on the adaptative radiation of the genus that instigates further investigation. Finally, the obtained data bring powerful information for further studies aiming at a robust phylogenetic circumscription of Aldama, indicating regions that are more variable and SSR markers useful for population genetics studies.

Supplemental Information

Supplemental Information 1. Coverage across each chloroplast assembly, number are number of reads.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-1
Supplemental Information 2. Summary of amount on missing data and degenerate bases in the alignments.

Length (bp): alignment length, Total number of sites: length of alignment x number of plastomes (36), Missing sites: number of missing sites, % Missing:percentage of missing sites, % Ambiguous sites: percentage of ambiguous sites.

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-2
Supplemental Information 3. Summary of amount on missing data and degenerate bases in the five coding regions with missing data.

Length (bp): alignment length, Total number of sites: length of alignment x number of plastomes (36), Missing sites: number of missing sites, % Missing:percentage of missing sites, % Ambiguous sites: percentage of ambiguous sites.

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-3
Supplemental Information 4. Summary of the 79 protein-coding gene alignments extracted from the 38 Aldama plastomes.

Alignment length (bp), length of alignment translated in amino acids, number of variable sites, percentage of variable sites, parsimony informative sites (Pi sites), and percentage of GC content (GC%) for the nucleotide alignments.

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-4
Supplemental Information 5. Results from the distribution of SSRs in all plastomes of the Aldama species studied here and five other Heliantheae genera.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-5
Supplemental Information 6. Synteny detected in the plastomes from Aldama trichophylla and other Heliantheae genera sequenced here.

The red block indicates a single synteny block showing that the plastomes from these six genera are very conserved.

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-6
Supplemental Information 7. Comparison within 10 selected Aldama plastomes (i.e., Aldama trichophylla, A. macrorhiza, A. linearis, A. excelsa, A. rubra, A. canescens, A. veredensis, A. filifolia, A. grandiflora, A. dentata 2) performed in mVISTA.

The plastome of A. trichophylla was used as reference. Dark blue blocks indicate conserved genes (CNS), light blue blocks indicate conserved introns (UTR), and red blocks indicate conserved noncoding sequences (CNS). White blocks represent regions with sequence variation among the plastomes. The vertical axis indicates sequence alignment similarity of 50–100%.

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-7
Supplemental Information 8. Sample geographical information.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-8
Supplemental Information 9. Sequences of the RNA baits used for plastome capture.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-9
Supplemental Information 10. ratio of synonymous (Ks; silent) and non-synonymous (Ka; amino-acid altering) substitutions in the codon alignments.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-10
Supplemental Information 11. DNA sequences of Aldama and outgroup taxa.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-11

Acknowledgments

We are very thankful to A. Bombo, A. Filartiga, E.E. Schilling, J. Bringel Jr. and M. Magenta for providing us with several plant samples. Mara Magenta also helped with botanical identification. We are grateful to Beatriz Appezatto-da-Glria for her scientific support. We thank Brian Williams for the English proofreading of the manuscript.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP-Sp-Brazil) (Thematic Project: 2010/51454-3). Benoît Loeuille received a postdoctoral grant from FAPESP (2011/19231-7). Beatriz Appezatto-da-Glória provided financial support (through a FAPESP Thematic Project). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Additional Information and Declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Benoit Loeuille 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.

Verônica Thode and Carolina Siniscalchi performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft.

Sonia Andrade, Magdalena Rossi and José Rubens Pirani conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft.

Data Availability

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Raw data are available in Table 1. All plastome sequences are available in the Supplemental Files and at GenBank: Data is available at GenBank: MN337902, MN337903, MN337904, MN337905, MN337906, MN337907, MN337908, MN337909, MN337910, MN356024, MN356025, MN356026, MN337890, MN337891, MN337892, MN337893, MN337894, MN337895, MN337896, MN337897, MN337898, MN337899, MN337900, MN337901, MN356027, MN356028, MN356029, MN356030, MN356031, MN356032, MN337911, MN311247, MN356033, MN356034, MN356035, MN356036, MT700540, MT700541, MT700542, MT700543, MT700544.

References

  • Altschul, Gish & Miller (1990).Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W. Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of Molecular Biology. 1990;215:403–410. doi: 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Altschul et al. (1997).Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Research. 1997;25:3389–3402. doi: 10.1093/nar/25.17.3389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Amiryousefi, Hyvönen & Poczai (2018).Amiryousefi A, Hyvönen J, Poczai P. IRscope: an online program to visualize the junction sites of chloroplast genomes. Bioinformatics. 2018;34:3030–3031. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Andrews (2010).Andrews S. 2010. [23 August 2019]. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/
  • Avise (1994).Avise JC. Molecular markers, natural history and evolution. Springer; Boston: 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • Barker et al. (2008).Barker MS, Kane NC, Matvienko M, Kozik A, Michelmore W, Knapp SJ, Rieseberg LH. Multiple paleopolyploidizations during the evolution of the Compositae reveal parallel patterns of duplicate gene retention after millions of years. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2008;25:2445–2455. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msn187. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Barker et al. (2016).Barker MS, Li Z, Kidder TI, Reardon CR, Lai Z, Oliveira LO, Scascitelli M, Rieseberg LH. Most Compositae (Asteraceae) are descendants of a paleohexaploid and all share a paleotetraploid ancestror with the Calyceraceae. American Journal of Botany. 2016;103:1203–1211. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1600113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bathellier et al. (2018).Bathellier C, Tcherkez G, Lorimer GH, Farquhar GD. Rubisco is not really so bad. Plant, Cell and Environment. 2018;41:705–716. doi: 10.1111/pce.13149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Beier et al. (2017).Beier S, Thiel T, Münch T, Scholz U, Mascher M. MISA-web: a web server for microsatellite prediction. Bioinformatics. 2017;33:2583–2585. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx198. [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]
  • Bombo, Filartiga & Appezzato-Da-Glória (2016).Bombo AB, Filartiga AL, Appezzato-Da-Glória B. Solving taxonomic problems within the Aldama genus based on anatomical characters. Australian Journal of Botany. 2016;64:467–475. doi: 10.1071/BT16031. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Bombo et al. (2014).Bombo AB, Oliveira TS, Oliveira ASS, Rehder VLG, Appezzato-Da-Glória B. Anatomy and essential oil composition of the underground systems of three species of Aldama La Llave (Asteraceae) Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society. 2014;141:115–125. doi: 10.3159/TORREY-D-12-00053.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Bombo et al. (2012).Bombo AB, Oliveira TS, Oliveira ASS, Rehder VLG, Magenta MAG, Appezzato-Da-Glória B. Anatomy and essential oils from aerial organs in three species of Aldama (Asteraceae-Heliantheae) that have a difficult delimitation. Australian Journal of Botany. 2012;60:632–642. doi: 10.1071/BT12160. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Breed et al. (2019).Breed MF, Harrison PA, Blyth C, Byrne M, Gaget V, Gellie JCN, Groom SVC, Hodgson R, Mills JG, Prowse TAA, Steane DA, Mohr JJ. The potential of genomics for restoring ecosystems and biodiversity. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2019;20:615–628. doi: 10.1038/s41576-019-0152-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Brudno et al. (2003).Brudno M, Malde S, Poliakov A, Do CB, Couronne O, Dubchak I, Batzoglou S. Global alignment: finding rearrangements during alignment. Bioinformatics. 2003;19:i54–i62. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg1005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Cai et al. (2015).Cai J, Ma PF, Li HT, Li DZ. Complete plastid genome sequencing of four Tilia species (Malvaceae): a comparative analysis and phylogenetic implications. PLOS ONE. 2015;10:e0142705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Cho et al. (2019).Cho M-S, Yang JY, Yang T-J, Kim S-C. Evolutionary comparison of the chloroplast genome in the woody Sonchus alliance (Asteraceae) on the Canary islands. Gene. 2019;10:217. doi: 10.3390/genes10030217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Choi & Park (2015).Choi KS, Park S. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of Aster spathulifolius (Asteraceae); genomic features and relationship with Asteraceae. Gene. 2015;572:214–221. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2015.07.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Christin et al. (2008).Christin P-A, Salamin N, Muasya AM, Roalson EH, Russier F, Besnard G. Evolutionary switch and genetic convergence on rbcL following the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2008;25:2361–2368. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msn178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Costa (2014).Costa CM. 2014. Molecular phylogeny of the goldenasters, subtribe Chrysopsidinae (Asteraceae: astereae), based on nuclear ribosomal and chloroplast sequence data. Unpublished MS thesis; p. 98 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • Cui et al. (2019).Cui Y, Nie L, Sun W, Xu Z, Wang Y, Yu J, Song J, Yao H. Comparative and phylogenetic analyses of ginger (Zingiber officinale) in the family Zingiberaceae based on the complete chloroplast genome. Plants. 2019;8:283. doi: 10.3390/plants8080283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Darling, Mau & Perna (2010).Darling AE, Mau B, Perna NT. progressiveMauve: multiple genome alignment with gene gain, loss and rearrangement. PLOS ONE. 2010;5:e11147. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dastpak et al. (2018).Dastpak A, Osaloo SK, Maassoumi AA, Safar KN. Molecular phylogeny of Astragalus sect, Ammodendron (Fabaceae) inferred from chloroplast ycf1 gene. Annales Botanici Fennici. 2018;55:75–82. doi: 10.5735/085.055.0108. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Dempewolf et al. (2010).Dempewolf H, Kane NC, Ostevik KL, Geleta M, Barker M, Lai Z, Stewart ML, Bekele E, Engels JMM, Cronk QCB, Rieseberg LH. Establishing genomic tools and resources for Guizotia abyssinica (L.f.) Cass, - the devolpment of a library of expressed sequence tags, microsatellite loci, and the sequencing of its chloroplast genome. Molecular Ecology Resources. 2010;10:1048–1058. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02859.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dillenberg & Kadereit (2013).Dillenberg MS, Kadereit JW. The phylogeny of the european high mountain genus Adenostyles (Asteraceae-Senecioneae) reveals that edaphic shifts coincide with dispersal events. American Journal of Botany. 2013;100:1171–1183. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1300060. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dong et al. (2012).Dong W, Liu J, Yu J, Wang L, Zhou S. Highly variable chloroplast markers for evaluating plant phylogeny at low taxonomic levels and for DNA barcoding. PLOS ONE. 2012;7(4):e35071. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Dong et al. (2015).Dong W, Xu C, Li C, Sun J, Zuo Y, Shi S, Cheng T, Guo J, Zhou S. ycf1, the most promising plastid DNA barcode of land plants. Scientific Reports. 2015;5:8348. doi: 10.1038/srep08348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Downie & Jansen (2015).Downie SR, Jansen RK. A comparative analysis of whole plastid genomes from the Apiales: expansion and contraction of the inverted repeat, mitochondrial to plastid transfer of DNA, and identification of highly divergent noncoding regions. Systematic Botany. 2015;40:336–351. doi: 10.1600/036364415X686620. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Drescher et al. (2000).Drescher A, Ruf S, Jr TCalsa, Carrer H, Bock R. The two largest chloroplast genome-encoded open reading frames of higher plants are essential genes. The Plant Journal. 2000;22:97–104. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.2000.00722.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ebert & Peakall (2009).Ebert D, Peakall R. Chloroplast simple sequence repeats (cpSSRs): technical resources and recommendations for expanding cpSSR discovery and applications to a wide array of plant species. Molecular Ecology Resources. 2009;9:673–690. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02319.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Edgar (2004).Edgar RC. MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Research. 2004;32:1792–1797. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Erb & Zarzycki (2018).Erb TJ, Zarzycki J. A short history of RubisCO: the rise and fall (?) of nature’s predominant CO2 fixing enzyme. Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 2018;49:100–107. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2017.07.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Estrada et al. (2018).Estrada O, Breen J, Richards SM, Cooper A. Ancien plant DNA in the genomics era. Nature Plants. 2018;4:394–396. doi: 10.1038/s41477-018-0187-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Fazekas et al. (2008).Fazekas AJ, Burgess KS, Kesanakurti PR, Graham SW, Newmaster SG, Husband BC, Percy DM, Hajibabaei M, Barrett SC. Multiple multilocus DNA barcodes from the plastid genome discriminate plant species equally well. PLOS ONE. 2008;3:e2802. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Feller, Anders & Mae (2008).Feller U, Anders I, Mae T. Rubiscolytics: fate of rubisco after its enzymatic function in a cell is terminated. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2008;59:1615–1624. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erm242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Filartiga et al. (2016).Filartiga AL, Bassinello V, Filippi GM, Bombo AB, Appezzato-da Glória B. Secretory duct distribution and leaf venation patterns of Aldama species (Asteraceae) and their application in taxonomy. Botany. 2016;94:1161–1170. doi: 10.1139/cjb-2016-0172. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Filartiga et al. (2017).Filartiga AL, Bombo AB, Garcia VL, Appezzato-da Glória B. Leaf and stem anatomy and essential oil composition of four brazilian Aldama species (Asteraceae) and their taxonomic significance. Brazilian Journal of Botany. 2017;40:503–516. doi: 10.1007/s40415-016-0350-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Firetti et al. (2017).Firetti F, Zuntini AR, Gaiarsa JW, Oliveira RS, Lohmann LG, Van Sluys M-A. Complete chloroplast genome sequences contribute to plant species delimitation: a case study of the Anemopaegma species complex. American Journal of Botany. 2017;104:1493–1509. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1700302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Fonseca & Lohmann (2017).Fonseca LHM, Lohmann LG. Plastome rearrangements in the Adenocalymma-Neojobertia Clade (Bignonieae, Bignoniaceae) and its phylogenetic implications. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017;8:1875. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Frazer et al. (2004).Frazer KA, Pachter L, Poliakov A, Rubin EM, Dubchak I. VISTA: computational tools for comparative genomics. Nucleic Acids Research. 2004;32:W273–W279. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh458. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Freire et al. (2015).Freire SE, Chemisquy MA, Anderberg AA, Beck SG, Meneses RI, Loeuille B, Urtubey E. The Lucilia group (Asteraceae, Gnaphalieae): phylogenetic and taxonomic considerations based on molecular and morphological evidence. Plant Systematics and Evolution. 2015;301:1227–1248. doi: 10.1007/s00606-014-1147-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Freitas et al. (2018).Freitas AS, Da Anunciação RR, D’Oliveira-Matielo CB, Stefenon VM. Chloroplast DNA: a promising source of information for plant phylogeny and traceability. Journal of Molecular Biology and Methods. 2018;1:1. [Google Scholar]
  • Funk et al. (2009).Funk VA, Susanna A, Stuessy TF, Bayer RJ. Systematics, evolution, and biogeography of the Compositae. International Association for Plant Taxonomy; Vienna: 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • Galmés et al. (2014).Galmés J, Andralojc PJ, Kapralov MV, Flexas J, Keys AJ, Molins A, Parry MAJ, Conesa MA. Environmentally driven evolution of rubisco and improved photosynthesis and growth with the C3 genus Limonium (Plumbaginaceae) New Phytologist. 2014;203:989–999. doi: 10.1111/nph.12858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gerschwitz-Eidt & Kadereit (2019).Gerschwitz-Eidt MA, Kadereit JW. Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS), ITS and cpDNA phylogenies reveal the existence of a distinct Pyrenean/Cantabrian lineage in the European high mountain genus Homogyne (Asteraceae) and imply dual westward migration of the genus. Alpine Botany. 2019;129:21–31. doi: 10.1007/s00035-018-0212-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Gichira et al. (2019).Gichira AW, Avoga S, Li Z, Hu G, Wang Q, Chen J. Comparative genomics of 11 complete chloroplast genomes of Senecioneae (Asteraceae) species: DNA barcodes and phylogenetics. Botanical Studies. 2019;60:17. doi: 10.1186/s40529-019-0265-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gitzendanner et al. (2018).Gitzendanner MA, Soltis PS, Yi T, Li D-Z, Soltis DE. Plastome phylogenetics: 30 years of inferences into plant evolution. Advances in Botanical Research. 2018;85:293–313. doi: 10.1016/bs.abr.2017.11.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Givnish et al. (2018).Givnish TJ, Zuluaga A, Spalink D, Gomez MS, Lam VKY, Saarela JM. Monocot plastid phylogenomics, timeline, net rates of species diversification, the power of multi-gene analyses, and a functional model for the origin of monocots. American Journal of Botany. 2018;105:1–23. doi: 10.1002/ajb2.1015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Goodwin, McPherson & McCombie (2016).Goodwin S, McPherson JD, McCombie WR. Coming of age: ten years of next-generation sequencing technologies. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2016;16:333–351. doi: 10.1038/nrg.2016.49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gutaker & Burbano (2017).Gutaker RM, Burbano HA. Reinforcing plant evolutionary genomics using ancient DNA. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2017;36:38–45. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2017.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gutiérrez-Larruscain et al. (2018).Gutiérrez-Larruscain D, Santos-Vicente M, Anderberg AA, Rico E, Martínez-Ortega MM. Phylogeny of the Inula group (Asteraceae: Inuleae): evidence from nuclear and plastid genomes and a recircumscription of Pentanema. Taxon. 2018;67:149–164. doi: 10.12705/671.10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Hermida-Carrera et al. (2017).Hermida-Carrera C, Fares MA, Á Fernández, Gil-Pelegrin E, Kapralov MV, Mir A, Molins A, Peguero-Pina JJ, Rocha J, Sancho-Knapik D, Galmés J. Positively selected amino acid replacements within the rubisco enzyme of oak trees are associated with ecological adaptations. PLOS ONE. 2017;12:e0183970. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183970. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hermida-Carrera et al. (2020).Hermida-Carrera C, Fares MA, Font-Carrascosa M, Kapralov MV, Koch MA, Mir A, Molins A, Ribas-Carbó M, Rocha J, Galmés J. Exploring molecular evolution of rubisco in C3 and CAM Orchidaceae and Bromeliaceae. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2020;20:11. doi: 10.1186/s12862-019-1551-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hörandl & Appelhans (2015).Hörandl E, Appelhans MS. In: Introduction in next-generation sequencing in plant systematics. Hörandl E, Appelhans MS, editors. International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT); Bratislava: 2015. pp. 1–8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Howe et al. (2003).Howe CJ, Barbrook AC, Koumandou VL, Nisbet RER, Symington HA, Wightman TF. Evolution of the chloroplast genome. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 2003;358:99–107. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hu et al. (2015).Hu S, Sablok G, Wang B, Qu D, Barbaro E, Viola R, Li M, Varotto C. Plastome organization and evolution of chloroplast genes in Cardamine species adapted to contrasting habitats. BMC Genomics. 2015;16:306. doi: 10.1186/s12864-015-1498-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Huang et al. (2016).Huang C-H, Zhang C, Liu M, Gao T, Qi J, Ma H. Multiple polyploidization events across Asteraceae with two nested events in the early history revealed by nuclear phylogenomics. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2016;33:2820–2835. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Huang et al. (2004).Huang S-F, Hwang SY, Wang JC, Lin T. Phylogeography of Trochodendron aralioides (Trochodendraceae) in Taiwan and its adjacent areas. Journal of Biogeography. 2004;31:1251–1259. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01082.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Hunter et al. (2018).Hunter ME, Hoban SM, Bruford MW, Segelbacher G, Bernatchez L. Next-generation conservation genetics and biodiversity monitoring. Evolutionary Applications. 2018;11:1029–1034. doi: 10.1111/eva.12661. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Jansen & Palmer (1987b).Jansen RK, Palmer JD. Chloroplast DNA from lettuce and Barnadesia (Asteraceae): structure, gene localization, and characterization of a large inversion. Current Genetics. 1987b;11:553–564. doi: 10.1007/BF00384619. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Jansen & Palmer (1987a).Jansen RK, Palmer J. D. ( A chloroplast DNA inversion marks an ancient evolutionary split in the sunflower family (Asteraceae) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1987a;84:5818–5822. doi: 10.1073/pnas.84.16.5818. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Jara-Arancio, Vidal & Arroyo (2018).Jara-Arancio P, Vidal PM, Arroyo MTK. Phylogenetic reconstruction of the genus Triptilion (Asteraceae, Nassauvieae) based on nuclear and chloroplast DNA sequences. Journal of Systematics and Evolution. 2018;56:120–128. doi: 10.1111/jse.12294. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Kapralov & Filatov (2006).Kapralov MV, Filatov DA. Molecular adaptation during adaptive radiation in the Hawaiian endemic genus Schiedea. PLOS ONE. 2006;1:e8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kapralov & Filatov (2007).Kapralov MV, Filatov DA. Widespread positive selection in the photosynthetic rubisco enzyme. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2007;7:73. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-7-73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kapralov et al. (2011).Kapralov MV, Kubien DS, Andersson I, Filatov DA. Changes in rubisco kinetics during the evolution of C4 photosynthesis in Flaveria (Asteraceae) are associated with positive selection on genes encoding the enzyme. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2011;28:1491–1503. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msq335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kapralov, Smith & Filatov (2012).Kapralov MV, Smith JAC, Filatov DA. Rubisco evolution in C4 eudicots: an analysis of Amaranthaceae sensu lato. PLOS ONE. 2012;7:e52974. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052974. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Katoh et al. (2002).Katoh K, Misawa K, Kuma K, Miyata T. MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Research. 2002;30:3059–3066. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkf436. [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]
  • Kim, Choi & Jansen (2005).Kim KJ, Choi KS, Jansen RK. Two chloroplast DNA inversions originated simultaneously during the early evolution of the sunflower family. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2005;22:1783–1792. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msi174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Kim & Lee (2005).Kim KJ, Lee HL. Widespread occurrence of small inversions in the chloroplast genomes of land plants. Molecular Cell. 2005;19:104–113. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Knope et al. (2020).Knope ML, Bellinger MR, Datlof EM, Gallaher TJ, Johnson MA. Insights into the evolutionary history of the hawaiian Bidens (Asteraceae) adaptive radiation revealed through phylogenomics. Journal of Heredity. 2020;111:119–137. doi: 10.1093/jhered/esz066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Koboldt et al. (2013).Koboldt DC, Steinberg KM, Larson DE, Wilson RK, Mardis ER. The next-generation sequencing revolution and its impact on genomics. Cell. 2013;155:27–38. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.09.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Krawczyk & Sawicki (2013).Krawczyk K, Sawicki J. The uneven rate of the molecular evolution of the gene sequences of DNA-dependent RNA polymerase I of the genus Lamium L. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2013;14:11376–11391. doi: 10.3390/ijms140611376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Krehenwinkel, Pomerantz & Prost (2019).Krehenwinkel H, Pomerantz A, Prost S. Genetic biomonitoring and biodiversity assessment using portable sequencing technologies: current uses and future directions. Gene. 2019;10:858. doi: 10.3390/genes10110858. [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]
  • Kuo et al. (2018).Kuo LY, Qi X, Ma H, Li F-W. Order-level fern plastome phylogenomics: new insights from Hymenophyllales. American Journal of Botany. 2018;105:1545–1555. doi: 10.1002/ajb2.1152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lahaye et al. (2008).Lahaye R, Bank Mvander, Bogarin D, Warner J, Pupulin F, Gigot G. DNA barcoding the floras of biodiversity hotspots. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2008;105:2923–2928. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0709936105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Langmead & Salzberg (2012).Langmead B, Salzberg S. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nature Methods. 2012;9:357–359. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Larkin et al. (2007).Larkin MA, Blackshields G, Brown NP, Chenna R, McGettigan PA, McWilliam H. Clustal W and Clustal X Version 2.0. Bioinformatics. 2007;23:2947–2948. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Léveillé-Bourret et al. (2018).Léveillé-Bourret E, Starr JR, Ford BA, Lemmon EM, Lemmon AR. Resolving rapid radiations within Angiosperm families using anchored phylogenomics. Systematic Biology. 2018;67:94–112. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syx050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Li et al. (2009).Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, 1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup The Sequence alignment/map (SAM) format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:2078–2079. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Li et al. (2019).Li H-T, Yi T-S, Gao LM, Ma P-F, Zhang T, Yang J-B. Origin of angiosperms and the puzzle of the Jurassic gap. Nature Plants. 2019;5:461–470. doi: 10.1038/s41477-019-0421-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lin et al. (2019).Lin N, Zhang X, Deng T, Zhang J, Meng A, Wang H. Plastome sequencing of Myripnois dioica and comparison within Asteraceae. Plant Divers. 2019;41:315–322. doi: 10.1016/j.pld.2019.07.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Loeuille, Keeley & Pirani (2015).Loeuille B, Keeley SC, Pirani JR. Systematics and evolution of syncephaly in American Vernonieae (Asteraceae) with emphasis on the Brazilian Subtribe Lychnophorinae. Systematic Botany. 2015;40:286–298. doi: 10.1600/036364415X686576. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Loeuille et al. (2015).Loeuille B, Semir J, Lohmann LG, Pirani JR. A phylogenetic analysis of Lychnophorinae (Asteraceae: Vernonieae) based on molecular and morphological data. Systematic Botany. 2015;40:299–315. doi: 10.1600/036364415X686585. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Logacheva et al. (2017).Logacheva MD, Penin AA, Samigullin TH, Vallejo-Roman CM, Antonov AS. Phylogeny of flowering plants by the chloroplast genome sequences: in search of a lucky gene. Biochemistry. 2017;72:1324–1330. doi: 10.1134/s0006297907120061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lohse et al. (2013).Lohse M, Drechsel O, Kahlau S, Bock R. OrganellarGenomeDRAW–a suite of tools for generating physical maps of plastid and mitochondrial genomes and visualizing expression data sets. Nucleic Acids Research. 2013;41:W575–W581. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lu et al. (2016).Lu C, Shen Q, Yang J, Wang B, Song C. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) Mitochondrial DNA A. 2016;27:3351–3353. doi: 10.3109/19401736.2015.1018217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lu, Li & Qiu (2017).Lu R-S, Li P, Qiu Y-X. The complete chloroplast genomes of three Cardiocrinum (Liliaceae) species: comparative genomic and phylogenetic analyses. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017;7:2054. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.02054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Magenta, Loeuille & Pirani (2017).Magenta MAG, Loeuille B, Pirani JR. Fitogeografia de Aldama (Asteraceae, Heliantheae) na América do Sul. Rodriguésia. 2017;68:463–480. [Google Scholar]
  • Magenta & Pirani (2014).Magenta MAG, Pirani JR. Novidades taxonômicas em Aldama (Asteraceae-Heliantheae) Rodriguésia. 2014;65:175–192. [Google Scholar]
  • Mandel et al. (2019).Mandel JR, Dikow RB, Siniscalchi CM, Thapa R, Watson LE, Funk VA. A fully resolved backbone phylogeny reveals numerous dispersals and explosive diversifications throughout the history of Asteraceae. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2019;116:14083–14088. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1903871116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Marx et al. (2010).Marx HE, O’Leary N, Yuan Y-W, Lu-Irving P, Tank DC, Múlgura ME. A molecular phylogeny and classification of Verbenaceae. American Journal of Botany. 2010;97:1647–1663. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1000144. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Matsuoka et al. (2002).Matsuoka Y, Yamazaki Y, Ogihara Y, Tsunewaki K. Whole chloroplast genome comparison of rice, maize, and wheat: implications for chloroplast gene diversification and phylogeny of cereals. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2002;19:2084–2091. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • McCormack et al. (2013).McCormack JE, Hird SM, Zellmer AJ, Carstens BC, Brumfield RT. Applications of next-generation sequencing to phylogeography and phylogenetics. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2013;66:526–538. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2011.12.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Millen et al. (2001).Millen RS, Olmstead RG, Adams KL, Palmer JD, Tao NT, Heggie L. Many parallel losses of infA from chloroplast DNA during Angiopserm evolution with multiple independent transfers to the nucleus. The Plant Cell. 2001;13:645–658. doi: 10.1105/tpc.13.3.645. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Morris & Shaw (2018).Morris AB, Shaw J. Markers in time and space: a review of the last decade of plant phylogeographic approaches. Molecular Ecology. 2018;27:2317–2333. doi: 10.1111/mec.14695. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Nei & Li (1979).Nei M, Li WH. Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 1979;76:5269–5273. doi: 10.1073/pnas.76.10.5269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Neubig et al. (2009).Neubig KM, Whitten WM, Carlsward BS, Blanco MA, Endara L, Williams NH, Moore M. Phylogenetic utility of ycf1 in orchids: a plastid gene more variable than mat K. Plant Systematics and Evolution. 2009;277:75–84. doi: 10.1007/s00606-008-0105-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Nie et al. (2020).Nie L, Cui Y, Chen X, Xu Z, Sun W, Wang Y, Song J, Yao H. Complete chloroplast genome sequence of the medicinal plant Arctium lappa (Burdock) Genome. 2020;63:53–60. doi: 10.1139/gen-2019-0070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Oberprieler et al. (2019).Oberprieler C, Hassanpour H, Sonboli A, Ott T, Wagner F. Multi-locus phylogenetic reconstructions reveal ample reticulate relationships among genera in Anthemidae subtribe Handeliinae (Compositae) Plant Systematics and Evolution. 2019;305:487–502. doi: 10.1007/s00606-019-01588-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Padin, Calviño & Ezcurra (2015).Padin AL, Calviño CI, Ezcurra C. Molecular phylogeny of Chuquiraga (Asteraceae-Barnadesioideae): infrageneric classification and generic affinities. Systematic Botany. 2015;40:316–326. doi: 10.1600/036364415X686602. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Panero (2007).Panero JL. Tribe heliantheae cass. In: Kubitzki K, editor. The families and genera of vascular plants. Vol. 8. Springer; Berlin: 2007. pp. 440–477. [Google Scholar]
  • Panero & Crozier (2016).Panero JL, Crozier BS. Macroevolutionary dynamics in the early diversification of Asteraceae. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2016;99:116–132. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2016.03.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Park et al. (2016).Park JY, Lee YS, Kim JK, Lee HO, Park HS, Lee SC, Kang JH, Lee TJ, Sung SH, Yang T-J. The complete chloroplast genome of Eclipta prostrata L. (Asteraceae) Mitochondrial DNA B. 2016;1:414–415. doi: 10.1080/23802359.2016.1176882. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Parks, Cronn & Liston (2009).Parks M, Cronn R, Liston A. Increasing phylogenetic resolution at low taxonomic levels using massively parallel sequencing of chloroplast genomes. BMC Biology. 2009;7:84. doi: 10.1186/1741-7007-7-84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Peterson, Romaschenko & Arrieta (2016).Peterson PM, Romaschenko K, Arrieta YH. A molecular phylogeny and classification of the Cynodonteae (Poaceae: Chloridoideae) with four new genera: Orthacanthus, Triplasiella, Tripogonella, and Zaqiqah; three new subtribes: Dactylocteniinae, Orininae, and Zaqiqahinae; and a subgeneric classification of Distichlis. Taxon. 2016;65:1263–1287. doi: 10.12705/656.4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Porter & Hajibabei (2018).Porter TM, Hajibabei M. Scaling up: a guide to high-throughput genomic approaches for biodiversity analysis. Molecular Ecology. 2018;27:313–338. doi: 10.1111/mec.14478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Pottier, Gilis & Boutry (2018).Pottier M, Gilis D, Boutry M. The hidden face of rubisco. Trends in Plant Science. 2018;23:382–392. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2018.02.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Pouchon et al. (2018).Pouchon C, Fernández A, Nassar JM, Boyer F, Aubert S, Lavergne S, Mavárez J. Phylogenomic analysis of the explosive adaptative radiation of the Espeletia complex (Asteraceae) in the tropical Andes. Systematic Biology. 2018;67:1041–1060. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syy022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Qi et al. (2016).Qi W, Lin F, Liu Y, Huang B, Cheng J, Zang W, Zhao H. High-throughput development of simple sequence repeat markers for genetic diversity research in Crambe abyssinica. BMC Plant Biology. 2016;16:139. doi: 10.1186/s12870-016-0828-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Raubeson & Jansen (2005).Raubeson LA, Jansen RK. Chloroplast genomes of plants. In: Henry RJ, editor. Plant diversity and evolution: genotypic and phenotypic variation in higher plants. Wallingford: CABI Publishing; 2005. pp. 45–68. [Google Scholar]
  • Reginato et al. (2016).Reginato M, Neubig KM, Majure LC, Michelangeli FA. The first complete plastid genomes of Melastomataceae are highly structurally conserved. PeerJ. 2016;4:e2715. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Rozas et al. (2017).Rozas J, Ferrer-Mata A, Sánchez-Delbarrio JC, Guirao-Rico S, Librado P, Ramos-Onsins SE, Sánchez-Gracia A. DnaSP v6: DNA sequence polymorphism analysis of large datasets. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2017;34:3299–3302. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ruhlman & Jansen (2014).Ruhlman TA, Jansen RK. The plastid genomes of flowering plants in Chloroplast Biotechnology: methods and protocols. In: Maliga P, editor. Meth. Mol. Biol. vol. 1132. Springer; New-York: 2014. pp. 3–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Saarela et al. (2018).Saarela JM, Burke SV, Wysocki WP, Barrett MD, Clark LG, Craine JM, Peterson PM, Soreng RJ, Vorontsova MS, Duvall MR. A 250 plastome phylogeny of the grass family (Poaceae): topological support under different data partitions. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4299. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Salih et al. (2017).Salih RHM, Majeský L, Schwarzacher T, Gornall R, Heslop-Harrison P. Complete chloroplast genomes from apomictic Taraxacum (Asteraceae): identity and variation between three microspecies. PLOS ONE. 2017;12:e0168008. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Santana Lopes et al. (2018).Santana Lopes A. de, Pacheco TG, Nimz T, Vieira L. do, N, Guerra MP, Nodari RO, Souza E. M. de, Pedrosa F. de O, Rogalski M. The complete plastome of macaw palm [Acrocomia aculeata (Jacq.) Lodd. ex Mart.] and extensive molecular analyses of the evolution of plastid genes in Arecaceae. Planta. 2018;247:1011–1030. doi: 10.1007/s00425-018-2841-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Schilling et al. (2000).Schilling EE, Da Costa FB, Lopes NP, Heise PJ. Brazilian species of Viguiera (Asteraceae) exhibit low levels of ITS sequence variation. Edinburgh Journal of Botany. 2000;57:323–332. doi: 10.1017/S0960428600000330. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Schilling & Jansen (1989).Schilling EE, Jansen RK. Restriction fragment analysis of chloroplast DNA and the systematics of Viguiera and related genera (Asteracae: Heliantheae) American Journal of Botany. 1989;76:1769–1778. doi: 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1989.tb15167.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Schilling & Panero (1996b).Schilling EE, Panero JL. Phylogenetic reticulation in subtribe Helianthinae. American Journal of Botany. 1996b;83:939–948. doi: 10.1002/j.1537-2197.1996.tb12787.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Schilling & Panero (2011).Schilling EE, Panero JL. A revised classification of subtribe Helianthinae (Asteraceae: Heliantheae), II. Derived lineages. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 2011;167:311–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2011.01172.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Schilling & Panero (1996a).Schilling EE, Panero JL. Relationships in Heliantheae subtribe Helianthinae based on chloroplast DNA restriction site analysis. In: Hind DJ, Beentje HJ, editors. Compositae: systematics, proceedings of the international compositae conference, vol. 1. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens; 1996a. pp. 361–376. [Google Scholar]
  • Shahzadi et al. (2019).Shahzadi I, Mehmood FAbdullah, Ali Z, Ahmed I, Mirza B. Chloroplast genome sequences of Artemisia maritima and Artemisia absinthium: comparative analyses, mutational hotspots in genus Artemisia and phylogeny in family Asteraceae. Genomics. 2019;112:1454–1463. doi: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2019.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Shaw et al. (2007).Shaw J, Lickey EB, Schilling EE, Small RL. Comparison of whole chloroplast genome sequences to choose noncoding regions for phylogenetic studies in angiosperms: the tortoise and the hare III. American Journal of Botany. 2007;94:275–288. doi: 10.3732/ajb.94.3.275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Shaw et al. (2014).Shaw J, Shafer HL, Leonard OR, Kovach MJ, Schorr M, Morris AB. Chloroplast DNA sequence utility for the lowest phylogenetic and phylogeographic inferences in angiosperms: the tortoise and the hare IV. American Journal of Botany. 2014;101:1987–2004. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1400398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Shen et al. (2020).Shen J, Zhang X, Landis JB, Zhang H, Deng T, Sun H, Wang H. Plastome evolution in Dolomiaea (Asteraceae, Cardueae) using phylogenomic and comparative analyses. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2020;11:376. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Silva & Appezzato-da Glória (2014).Silva E. M. S. da, Hayashi AH, Appezzato-da Glória B. Anatomy of vegetative organs in Aldama tenuifolia and A, kunthiana (Asteraceae: Heliantheae) Brazilian Journal of Botany. 2014;37:505–517. doi: 10.1007/s40415-014-0101-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Siniscalchi et al. (2019).Siniscalchi CM, Loeuille B, Pirani JR, Mandel JR. Using genomic data to develop SSR markers for species of Chresta (Vernonieae, Asteraceae) from the Caatinga. Brazilian Journal of Botany. 2019;42:661–669. doi: 10.1007/s40415-019-00569-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Soto-Trejo et al. (2015).Soto-Trejo F, Schilling EE, Solórzano S, Oyama K, Lira R, Dávila P. Phylogenetic relationships in the genus Florestina (Asteraceae, Bahieae) Plant Systematics and Evolution. 2015;301:2147–2160. doi: 10.1007/s00606-015-1220-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Spreitzer & Salvucci (2002).Spreitzer RJ, Salvucci ME. Rubisco: structure, regulatory interactions, and possibilities for a better enzyme. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 2002;53:449–475. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Stamakis (2014).Stamakis A. RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:1312–1313. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Steffen, Dillenberger & Kadereit (2016).Steffen S, Dillenberger MS, Kadereit JW. Of dwarfs and giants: phylogeny of the Petasites-clade (Asteraceae-Senecioneae) and evolution of miniaturization in artic-alpine environments. Plant Systematics and Evolution. 2016;302:545–559. doi: 10.1007/s00606-016-1282-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Stern et al. (2007).Stern A, Doron-Faigenboim A, Erez A, Martz E, Bacharach E, Pupko T. Selecton 2007: advanced models for detecting positive and purifying selection using a bayesian inference approach. Nucleic Acids Research. 2007;35:W506–W511. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkm382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Straub et al. (2012).Straub SCK, Parks M, Weitemier K, Fishbein M, Cronn RC, Liston A. Navigating the tip of the genomic iceberg: next-generation sequencing for plant systematics. American Journal of Botany. 2012;99:349–364. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1100335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Stull et al. (2013).Stull GW, Moore MJ, Mandala VS, Douglas NA, Kates H-R, Qi X, Brockington SF, Soltis PS, Soltis DE, Gitzendanner MA. A targeted enrichment strategy for massively parallel sequencing of angiosperm plastid genomes. Applications in Plant Sciences. 2013;1:1200497. doi: 10.3732/apps.1200497. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sun et al. (2019).Sun J, Dong X, Cao Q, Xu T, Zhu M, Sun J, Dong T, Ma D, Han Y, Li Z. A systematic comparison of eight new plastome sequences from Ipomoea L. PeerJ. 2019;7:e6563. doi: 10.7717/peerj.6563. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sun et al. (2016).Sun Y, Moore MJ, Zhang S, Soltis PS, Soltis DE, Zhao T, Meng A, Li X, Li J, Wang H. Phylogenomic and structural analyses of 18 plastomes across nearly all families of early-diverging eudicots, including an angiopserm-wide analysis of IR gene content evolution. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2016;96:93–101. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2015.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Swanson, Nielsen & Yang (2003).Swanson WJ, Nielsen R, Yang Q. Pervasive adaptive evolution in mammalian fertilization proteins. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2003;20:18–20. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • R Development Core Team (2017).R Development Core Team R: a language and environment for statistical computing. [23 August 2019];http://www.r-project.org 2017
  • Techaprasan et al. (2010).Techaprasan J, Klinbunga S, Ngamriabsakul C, Jenjittikul T. Genetic variation of Kaempferia (Zingiberaceae) in Thailand based on chloroplast DNA (psbA-trnH and petA-psbJ) sequences. Genetics and Molecular Research. 2010;9:1957–1973. doi: 10.4238/vol9-4gmr873. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Thapa, Bayer & Mandel (2019).Thapa R, Bayer RJ, Mandel JR. Development and characterization of microsatellite markers for Antennaria corymbosa (Asteraceae) and close relatives. Applications in Plant Sciences. 2019;7:e11268. doi: 10.1002/aps3.11268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Thode & Lohmann (2019).Thode VA, Lohmann LG. Comparative chloroplast genomics at low taxonomic levels: a case study using Amphilophium (Bignonieae, Bignoniaceae) Frontiers in Plant Science. 2019;10:796. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00796. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Timme et al. (2007).Timme RE, Kuehl JV, Boore JL, Jansen RK. A comparative analysis of the Lactuca and Helianthus (Asteraceae) plastid genomes: identification of divergent regions and categorization of shared repeats. American Journal of Botany. 2007;94:302–312. doi: 10.3732/ajb.94.3.302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Tyagi et al. (2020).Tyagi S, Jung J-A, Kim JS, Won SY. Comparative analysis of the complete chloroplast genome of mainland Aster spathulifolius and other Aster species. Plants. 2020;9:568. doi: 10.3390/plants9050568. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Walker, Zanis & Emery (2014).Walker JF, Zanis MJ, Emery NC. Comparative analysis of complete chloroplast genome sequence and inversion variation in Lasthenia burkei (Madieae, Asteraceae) American Journal of Botany. 2014;101:722–729. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1400049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang et al. (2015).Wang M, Cui L, Feng K, Deng P, Du X, Wan F, Weining S, Nie X. Comparative analysis of Asteraceae chloroplast genomes: structural organization, RNA editing and evolution. Plant Molecular Biology. 2015;33:1526–1538. doi: 10.1007/s11105-015-0853-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang et al. (2020).Wang L, Zhang H, Wu X, Wang Z, Fang W, Jiang M, Chen H, Huang L, Liu C. Phylogenetic relationships of Atractylodes lancea, A. chinensis and A. macrocephala, revealed by complete plastome and nuclear gene sequences. PLOS ONE. 2020;15:e0227610. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227610. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wong et al. (2020).Wong GK-S, Soltis DE, Leebens-Mack J, Wickett NJ, Barker MS, Peer YVande, Graham SW, Melkonian M. Sequencing and analyzing the transcriptomes of a thousand species across the tree of life for green plants. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 2020;71:1.1–1.25. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042916-041040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wyman, Jansen & Boore (2004).Wyman SK, Jansen RK, Boore JL. Automatic annotation of organellar genomes with DOGMA. Bioinformatics. 2004;20:3252–3255. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Yan et al. (2019).Yan M, Zhao X, Zhou J, Huo Y, Ding Y, Yuan Z. The complete chloroplast genomes of Punica granatum and a comparison with other species in Lythraceae. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2019;20:2886. doi: 10.3390/ijms20122886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Yang et al. (2000).Yang Z, Nielsen R, Goldman N, Pedersen AM. Codon-substitution models for heterogeneous selection pressure at amino acid sites. Genetics. 2000;155:431–449. doi: 10.1093/genetics/155.1.431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Yao et al. (2019).Yao X, Tan Y-H, Yang J-B, Wang Y, Corlett RT, Manen J-F. Exceptionally high rates of positive selection on the rbcL gene in the genus Ilex (Aquifoliaceae) BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2019;19:192. doi: 10.1186/s12862-019-1521-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Yu et al. (2017).Yu J, Dossa K, Wang L, Zhang Y, Wei X, Liao B, Zhang X. PMDBase: a database for studying microsatellite DNA and marker development in plants. Nucleic Acids Research. 2017;45:D1046–D1053. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw906. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang et al. (2017).Zhang N, Erickson DL, Ramachandran P, Ottesen AR, Timme RE, Funk VA, Luo Y, Handy SM. An analysis of Echinacea chloroplast genomes: implications for future botanical identification. Scientific Reports. 2017;7:216. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-00321-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang et al. (2019).Zhang X, Deng T, Moore MJ, Ji Y, Lin N, Zhang H, Meng A, Wang H, Sun Y, Sun H. Plastome phylogenomics of Saussurea (Asteraceae: Cardueae) BMC Plant Biology. 2019;19:290. doi: 10.1186/s12870-019-1896-6. [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.

Data Citations

  1. Andrews S. 2010. [23 August 2019]. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/

Supplementary Materials

Supplemental Information 1. Coverage across each chloroplast assembly, number are number of reads.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-1
Supplemental Information 2. Summary of amount on missing data and degenerate bases in the alignments.

Length (bp): alignment length, Total number of sites: length of alignment x number of plastomes (36), Missing sites: number of missing sites, % Missing:percentage of missing sites, % Ambiguous sites: percentage of ambiguous sites.

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-2
Supplemental Information 3. Summary of amount on missing data and degenerate bases in the five coding regions with missing data.

Length (bp): alignment length, Total number of sites: length of alignment x number of plastomes (36), Missing sites: number of missing sites, % Missing:percentage of missing sites, % Ambiguous sites: percentage of ambiguous sites.

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-3
Supplemental Information 4. Summary of the 79 protein-coding gene alignments extracted from the 38 Aldama plastomes.

Alignment length (bp), length of alignment translated in amino acids, number of variable sites, percentage of variable sites, parsimony informative sites (Pi sites), and percentage of GC content (GC%) for the nucleotide alignments.

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-4
Supplemental Information 5. Results from the distribution of SSRs in all plastomes of the Aldama species studied here and five other Heliantheae genera.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-5
Supplemental Information 6. Synteny detected in the plastomes from Aldama trichophylla and other Heliantheae genera sequenced here.

The red block indicates a single synteny block showing that the plastomes from these six genera are very conserved.

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-6
Supplemental Information 7. Comparison within 10 selected Aldama plastomes (i.e., Aldama trichophylla, A. macrorhiza, A. linearis, A. excelsa, A. rubra, A. canescens, A. veredensis, A. filifolia, A. grandiflora, A. dentata 2) performed in mVISTA.

The plastome of A. trichophylla was used as reference. Dark blue blocks indicate conserved genes (CNS), light blue blocks indicate conserved introns (UTR), and red blocks indicate conserved noncoding sequences (CNS). White blocks represent regions with sequence variation among the plastomes. The vertical axis indicates sequence alignment similarity of 50–100%.

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-7
Supplemental Information 8. Sample geographical information.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-8
Supplemental Information 9. Sequences of the RNA baits used for plastome capture.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-9
Supplemental Information 10. ratio of synonymous (Ks; silent) and non-synonymous (Ka; amino-acid altering) substitutions in the codon alignments.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-10
Supplemental Information 11. DNA sequences of Aldama and outgroup taxa.
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10886/supp-11

Data Availability Statement

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Raw data are available in Table 1. All plastome sequences are available in the Supplemental Files and at GenBank: Data is available at GenBank: MN337902, MN337903, MN337904, MN337905, MN337906, MN337907, MN337908, MN337909, MN337910, MN356024, MN356025, MN356026, MN337890, MN337891, MN337892, MN337893, MN337894, MN337895, MN337896, MN337897, MN337898, MN337899, MN337900, MN337901, MN356027, MN356028, MN356029, MN356030, MN356031, MN356032, MN337911, MN311247, MN356033, MN356034, MN356035, MN356036, MT700540, MT700541, MT700542, MT700543, MT700544.


Articles from PeerJ are provided here courtesy of PeerJ, Inc

RESOURCES