Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Biodiversity Data Journal logoLink to Biodiversity Data Journal
. 2023 Jan 10;11:e96066. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.11.e96066

Complete mitochondrial genome of Rectorisluxiensis (Teleostei, Cyprinidae): characterisation and phylogenetic implications

Mingyao Zhang 1,2, Qiang Zhou 1,2, Hongmei Xiang 1, Jinxiu Wang 1,2, Xiangying Lan 1,2, Qinghua Luo 1,2, Wansheng Jiang 1,2,✉
PMCID: PMC9846281  PMID: 36761086

Abstract

Mitochondrial genomes (mitogenomes) are widely used in scientific studies on phylogenetic relationships, molecular evolution and population genetics. Here, we sequenced and analysed the mitogenome of Rectorisluxiensis, a Yangtze River drainage endemic, but threatened cyprinid fish of Labeoninae. The complete mitogenome of R.luxiensis was 16,592 bp in length, encoding 13 protein coding genes (PCGs), 22 transfer RNA genes (tRNAs), two ribosomal RNA genes (rRNAs) and a control region. The mitogenome showed a high A+T content (58.2%) and a positive AT-skew (0.10) and negative GC-skew (–0.25) base composition pattern. All the 13 PCGs were found to start with ATG codons, except for the COXI, in which GTG was the start codon. The ratio of non-synonymous and synonymous substitutions (Ka/Ks) of all the 13 PCGs were less than 1, indicating negative or purifying selection evolved in these genes. Comparatively speaking, the evolutionary rate of ATP8 was the fastest and ND4L was the slowest. All tRNAs could fold into a typical cloverleaf secondary structure, except tRNASer1 that lacked a dihydrouridine arm. Phylogenetic relationships, based on the PCGs dataset of 91 mitogenomes of Labeoninae, showed that R.luxiensis grouped with Rectorisposehensis and they formed a monophyletic Rectoris. However, many non-monophyletic genera were revealed in labeoninae fishes, such as Cirrhinus, Decorus, Garra, Labeo and Pseudocrossocheilus, which indicated that the validities of some traditional genera required a further check. This study reported the complete mitogenome of R.luxiensis for the first time, which provided valuable data for future molecular evolution and conservation related studies of Rectoris and other species in Labeoninae.

Keywords: Labeoninae, mitogenome assembly, annotation, phylogenetic relationship, evolution analysis

Introduction

Rectorisluxiensis is a small-sized freshwater fish species that belongs to the Cyprinidae family in Cypriniformes. It has been recorded to distribute, endemically, only in some tributaries of the Yangtze drainage, including Yuanshui River and Xiangjiang River in the Hunan Province, Qingjiang River in the Hubei Province and Daning River in the Sichuan Province (Yue 2000). In morphology, R.luxiensis presents a typically modified structure of lip and jaw; thus, it has been categorised into the traditional Labeoninae, which was one of the twelve broadly recognised subfamilies in Cyprinidae (Yue 2000, Nelson et al. 2016, Jiang et al. 2018, Wang et al. 2022). Although recent phylogenetic studies showed that the Labeoninae would be modified as a tribe (Labeonini) in the subfamily Cyprininae (Yang et al. 2012, Yang et al. 2015), we tentatively kept it as a traditional subfamily here just for convenience. The species of Labeoninae show fantastic diversity in forms of lip and jaw, as well as other mouth-related structures (or oromandibular structures), which has been assumed to be able to settle into the turbulent water flow and scrape off the algae on the benthic substrate. Amongst many genera in Labeoninae, Rectoris is distinguished by the following combination of characteristics: upper lip absent, rostral cap developed and covering upper jaw completely, upper jaw linked to lower lip by a frenum, premaxillary barbells not well-developed, without mental grooves and lower lip not modified into adhesive disc (Yue 2000, Zheng et al. 2016). Although the Rectoris fishes are small-sized that usually grow up to less than 20 cm (Yue 2000), many of them are still under threats because of their capture for meat, especially for its delicate flavour from its relatively high contents of lipids. For this reason, it has usually been called an “oil fish” in many local areas.

During earlier times, new genera or species identifications and classifications amongst Labeoninae were merely from morphological studies (e.g. Zheng et al. (2010a), Huang et al. 2014); however, it was usually challenging while facing a wide variety of the oromandibular structures within the group. After all, Labeoninae is now one of the most diverse subfamilies of Cyprinidae that have about 40 genera and 400 species found from Asia to Africa (Wang et al. 2022) or even more according to the catalogue of fishes (Fricke et al. 2022). With the help of molecular data, more and more new taxa have been identified recently by using morphological comparisons along with phylogenetic inferences (e.g. Yao et al. (2018), Wang et al. (2022)). Given a lot of species in Labeoninae are still largely unknown since they have been described initially, obtaining more and more molecular data would be crucial for further understanding the phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary history of these species.

Vertebrate mitochondrial genome (mitogenome) is double-stranded circular DNA with typically 15 ~ 18 kb in length, with many characteristics like maternal inheritance, stable genetic components, fast evolutionary rate, low recombination frequency and highly conserved coding regions (Wolstenholme 1992, Boore 1999). Mitochondrial DNAs (mtDNAs), as molecular markers for evolutionary phylogenetics and population genetics, have been extensively used in a variety of species (Simon and Hadrys 2013, Sun et al. 2016, Hao et al. 2021, Zhao et al. 2021). As an endemic, but threatened fish of Labeoninae in the Yangtze River drainage, the R.luxiensis, received very little attention and few scientific studies since it has been described in 1977. The current knowledge of this species in science has been mainly restricted to the original morphological descriptions and distributions, whereas seldom further phylogenetic studies have been involved with it, not to mention its population structure and genetic diversity. In this study, we sequenced, assembled, annotated and reported the complete mitogenome of R.luxiensis for the first time, by which we aimed to promote the future studies of phylogenetics, population genetics and conservation biology of this species and other fishes in Labeoninae.

Materials and methods

Sample collection and sequencing

Samples of R.luxiensis were collected from two localities in the Lishui River drainage in Sangzhi County, Zhangjiajie City, Hunan Province of China (Fig. 1). One was collected from Linxihe (29°59′N, 110°29′E, n = 4) in September 2021 and the other was from Bamaoxi (29°63′N, 110°02′E, n = 13) in September 2022. All the samples were obtained by courtesy of local men through recreational fishing that was restricted to “one person with one rod and one fishhook”, which was allowed according to local laws. All specimens were preserved in 95% ethanol and deposited in the Engineering Laboratory at Jishou University. A unilateral pectoral fin from one sample in Linxihe (voucher No. JWS20210646) was cut out for DNA extraction by using the DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). The DNA library was constructed and high-throughput sequencing was then conducted in paired-end mode on the DNBSEQ-T7 platform (Complete Genomics and MGI Tech, Shenzhen, China). Approximately 20 Gb of raw reads of 150 bp read length were generated.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Sampling localities (A), typical habitat in Bamaoxi (B) and photos of a living specimen of R.luxiensis (C, lateral view; D, dorsal view; E, ventral view).

Mitogenome assembly and annotation

The complete mitogenome of R.luxiensis was assembled using NOVOPlasty 4.3 under default settings (Dierckxsens et al. 2017), with the mitogenome of Rectorisposehensis as a reference. The mitogenome annotation, including the preliminary location of protein-coding genes (PCGs) and ribosomal RNA genes (rRNAs) and the prediction of transfer RNA genes (tRNAs) were carried out by the MITOS web server (available at http://mitos2.bioinf.uni-leipzig.de/index.py, Donath et al. (2019)). The secondary structures of tRNAs were further identified using tRNAscan-SE Search Server (available at http://lowelab.ucsc.edu/tRNAscan-SE//, Lowe and Chan (2016)). The web application GeSeq was then employed to check up all the annotations and map the cycled mitogenome structure (available at https://chlorobox.mpimp-golm.mpg.de/geseq.html, Michael et al. (2017)). The final complete mitogenome sequence with annotation information of R.luxiensis has been submitted into NCBI (GenBank accession number: OP132373).

Mitogenome characteristic analyses

The base structure, nucleotide composition and relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) of different gene fragments were calculated using MEGA 11.0 (Tamura et al. 2021). The skewing of the nucleotide composition was calculated with the formulae: AT-skew = (A-T)/(A+T) and GC-skew = (G-C)/(G+C) (Perna and Kocher 1995). The ratio of non-synonymous substitutions (Ka) and synonymous substitutions (Ks) of each PCG were calculated by DNASP 6.0 (Rozas et al. 2017) for checking the signals of selective pressure, while Ka/Ks value > 1 indicates positive selection, Ka/Ks = 1 indicates neutral selection and Ka/Ks < 1 indicates negative or purifying selection. The plots of codons usage frequencies and Ka/Ks ratio were drawn using the Origin software (Moberly et al. 2018).

Phylogenetic analyses

Mitogenomic sequences of 91 Labeoninae species, including the R.luxiensis which we sequenced in this study, were used for phylogenetic analyses, whereas a loach species Cobitistakatsuensis was selected as the outgroup. All the 13 PCGs were extracted and checked manually through MEGA 11.0 and then aligned using the in-built CLUSTALW algorithm with default settings (Tamura et al. 2021). The best-fit partitioning scheme and partition-specific models were calculated using Partitionfinder 2.1.1 (Lanfear et al. 2017), while the specific codons were assigned for each PCG. Phylogenetic analyses were conducted by both Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Bayesian Inference (BI) methods, based only on the PCGs dataset. The ML analysis was run in RaxML 8.0.2 (Stamatakis 2015) using the GTRGAMMA model and the best codon partition scheme, with the execution of 10 runs of random additional sequences and generating the bootstrap values following 1,000 rapid bootstrap replicates. The BI analysis was performed in MrBayes v.3.2.2 (Ronquist et al. 2012) by running 1.0×107 million generations, while the posterior probabilities were calculated simultaneously with sampling every 1000 generations and discarding the initial 25% generations as burn-in.

Results

Mitogenomic structure and composition

The complete mitogenome of R.luxiensis had a total length of 16,592 bp, which consisted of 13 typical vertebrate PCGs, 2rRNAs, 22 tRNAs and a non-coding control region (D-LOOP) (Fig. 2, Table 1). Amongst these genes, only one PCG (ND6) and eight tRNA genes (tRNAGln, tRNAAla, tRNAAsn, tRNACys, tRNATyr, tRNASer, tRNAGlu and tRNAPro) were encoded by the L-strand and the remaining gene sequences were encoded by the H-strand. The mitogenome of R.luxiensis was compact, with ten gene overlaps, ranging from 1 to 7 bp in length. In addition, there were seventeen intergenic nucleotides (IGN) regions ranging from 1 to 24 bp in length and occupying a total of 84 bp, where the longest IGN (24 bp) was located between the tRNAVal and 16S rRNA genes (Table 1).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Circular gene map of the newly-sequenced mitogenome of R.luxiensis.

Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of the mitogenome of R.luxiensis.

Gene Position Length Codon Anticodon Intergenic nucleotides* Strand
From To Start Stop
tRNAPhe 1 69 69 GAA H
12S rRNA 70 1,022 953 2 H
tRNAVal 1,025 1,096 72 TAC 20 H
16S rRNA 1,117 2,756 1,640 24 H
tRNALeu 2,781 2,856 76 TAA 1 H
ND1 2,858 3,832 975 ATG TAA 4 H
tRNAIle 3,837 3,908 72 GAT –2 H
tRNAGln 3,907 3,977 71 TTG 1 L
tRNAMet 3,979 4,047 69 CAT 0 H
ND2 4,048 5,094 1,047 ATG TAG –2 H
tRNAtrp 5,093 5,163 71 TCA 2 H
tRNAAla 5,166 5,234 69 TGC 1 L
tRNAAsn 5,236 5,308 73 GTT 2 L
NCR 5,311 5,342 32 –1 H
tRNACys 5,342 5,407 66 GCA 1 L
tRNATyr 5,409 5,479 71 GTA 1 L
COX1 5,481 7,031 1,551 GTG TAA 0 H
tRNASer 7,032 7,102 71 TGA 3 L
tRNAAsp 7,106 7,177 72 GTC 13 H
COX2 7,191 7,881 691 ATG T-- 0 H
tRNALys 7,882 7,957 76 TTT 1 H
ATP8 7,959 8,123 165 ATG TAA –7 H
ATP6 8,117 8,800 684 ATG TAA –1 H
COX3 8,800 9,585 786 ATG TAA –1 H
tRNAGly 9,585 9,656 72 TCC 0 H
ND3 9,657 10,007 351 ATG TAG –2 H
tRNAArg 10,006 10,075 70 TCG 0 H
ND4L 10,076 10,372 297 ATG TAA –7 H
ND4 10,366 11,743 1,378 ATG T-- 0 H
tRNAHis 11,744 11,812 69 GTG 0 H
tRNASer 11,813 11,881 67 GCT 1 H
tRNALeu 11,883 11,955 73 TAG 3 H
ND5 11,959 13,782 1,824 ATG TAA –4 H
ND6 13,779 14,300 522 ATG TAG 0 L
tRNAGlu 14,301 14,369 69 TTC 4 L
CYTB 14,374 15,514 1,141 ATG T-- 0 H
tRNAThr 15,515 15,586 72 TGT –1 H
tRNAPro 15,586 15,655 70 TGG 16 L
D-LOOP 15,672 16,592 921 0 H
Notes: * The numbers of nucleotides between the given and its previous gene, negative values indicate an overlap; T-- indicated incomplete stop codon; H and L indicated that the genes are transcribed on the heavy and light strand, respectively.
Open in a new tab

The base compositions of R.luxiensis were A (32.0%) > C (26.2%) = T (26.2%) > G (15.7%), having a bias towards A+T (58.2%) in the complete mitogenome. The A+T bias also existed while looking at the A+T contents of PCGs (58.5%), rRNAs (54.9%), tRNAs (56.0%) and D-LOOP (67.3%), respectively (Table 2). The nucleotide compositions also showed a clear A and C bias pattern (AT-skew = 0.10, GC skew = –0.25), indicating a greater abundance of A than T and C than G (Table 2). Moreover, the AT skew and GC skew values of all the 13 PCGs were 0.02 and – 0.28, respectively, which indicated that the A and C bias pattern generally existed amongst the PCGs (Table 2).

Table 2.

Nucleotide composition (in percentages) and skew of the mitogenome of R.luxiensis.

gene size（bp） T% C% A% G% A+T% C+G% AT-skew GC-skew
ND1 972 26.3 28.8 30.5 14.4 56.8 43.2 0.07 –0.33
ND2 1,044 24.2 30.8 32.8 12.2 57.0 43.0 0.15 –0.43
COX1 1,548 29.8 25.3 27.8 17.0 57.6 42.3 –0.03 –0.20
COX2 690 27.1 25.8 31.4 15.7 58.5 41.5 0.07 –0.24
ATP8 165 26.1 26.7 36.4 10.9 62.5 37.6 0.16 –0.42
ATP6 684 30.0 26.5 30.7 12.7 60.7 39.2 0.01 –0.35
COX3 783 26.7 28.5 28.6 16.2 55.3 44.7 0.03 –0.28
ND3 348 39.3 28.7 27.6 14.4 66.9 43.1 –0.17 –0.33
ND4L 294 27.2 30.6 26.5 15.6 53.7 46.2 –0.01 –0.32
ND4 1,380 27.2 26.9 32.1 13.7 59.3 40.6 0.08 –0.33
ND5 1,821 28.5 26.1 32.9 12.5 61.4 38.6 0.07 –0.35
ND6 519 42.8 11.6 13.5 32.2 56.3 43.8 –0.52 0.47
CYTB 1,140 29.6 26.3 29.8 14.2 59.4 40.5 0.00 –0.30
rRNAs 2,593 19.7 24.4 35.2 20.7 54.9 45.1 0.28 –0.08
tRNAs 1,556 24.9 24.5 31.1 19.5 56.0 44.0 0.11 –0.11
D-LOOP 921 33.6 19.1 33.7 13.7 67.3 32.8 0.00 –0.16
PCGs 11,394 28.6 26.5 29.9 15.0 58.5 41.5 0.02 –0.28
Total 16,952 26.2 26.2 32.0 15.7 58.2 41.9 0.10 –0.25
Open in a new tab

Characteristics of rRNAs and tRNAs

The two rRNAs (12S and 16S rRNA) were positioned between tRNAphe and tRNAleu and separated by tRNAval in the mitogenome of R.luxiensis. The 12S rRNA was composed of 953 bp and the 16S rRNA was 1,640 bp in length. Both rRNA genes were encoded on the H-strand and displayed a positive AT skew and a negative GC skew (AT skew = 0.28, GC skew = – 0.08) (Table 2).

The mitogenome of R.luxiensis included 22 tRNAs as that in most vertebrates. The length of individual tRNA ranged from 66 to 76 bp and the concatenated total length of all tRNAs was 1,556 bp. The average AT skew was 0.11 and the average GC skew was –0.11 of these tRNAs, showing slightly higher A and C than T and G accordingly (Table 2). All tRNAs fold into typical cloverleaf secondary structures, except the tRNASer1 that lacked the dihydrouridine (DHU) arm (both stem and loop) (Fig. 3). In addition to the typical base pairs (G-C and A-U), there were also some wobble G-U pairs in the secondary structures of these tRNAs, which could also form stable chemical bonds between G and U. For instance, eight tRNAs (tRNAMet, tRNALys, tRNASer1, tRNALeu2, tRNAGlu, tRNASer2, tRNAAla and tRNACys) showed G-U wobble base pairs in the acceptor stem, while another five (tRNAArg, tRNAGlu, tRNASer2, tRNATyr and tRNAAla) in the anticodon stem. Additionally, five tRNAs (tRNAPhe, tRNAVal, tRNAArg, tRNAHis and tRNAThr) showed mismatched base pairs in the acceptor stem and three (tRNATrp, tRNAAsp and tRNASer1) in the anticodon stem.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Secondary structure of 22 tRNA genes from the R.luxiensis mitogenome.

Characteristics of PCGs and codon usages

In the mitogenome of R.luxiensis, the PCGs comprised a concatenated length of 11,394 bp that accounted for 67.21% of the total sequence. All the 13 PCGs encoded on the H-strand, except ND6 that was encoded by the L-strand. All the PCGs began with the regular start codon ATG, except that the COX1 gene started with GTG. Ten PCGs were terminated with the conventional stop codons (TAA or TAG), while the other three (ND4, COX2 and CYTB) were terminated with incomplete stop codons (TA or T) (Table 1).

The RSCU values, based on 13 PCGs, showed that Leu encoded by the greatest number of synonymous codons (n = 6), while others were fewer: the Val, Ser1, Pro, Thr, Ala, Arg and Gly, were encoded by four codons and all the rest of the amino acids were encoded by only two codons (Fig. 4). While looking at each codon, the top three frequently-used codons of the PCGs were CGA (2.63%) encoded for Arg, CUA (2.5%) for Leu and CCA (2.29%) for Pro.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

The relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) in the mitogenome of R.luxiensis.

The Ka/Ks ratios of the 13 PCGs, based on 91 species of Labeoninae, were all less than 1, with the highest Ka/Ks ratio in ATP8 and the lowest ratio in ND4L (Fig. 5). None of the PCGs showed Ka/Ks ≥ 1 indicating a generally negative or purifying selection. Therefore, the evolution pattern of the mitogenome of Labeoninae tended to be conservative to maintain the regular functions of the generated proteins.

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Open in a new tab

The Ka/Ks ratio of 13 PCGs amongst 91 species of Labeoninae.

Phylogenetic analysis

Phylogenetic analyses were conducted, based on the 13 concatenated PCGs dataset from 91 species of Labeoninae (including R.luxiensis which we obtained in this study), while the Cobitistakatsuensis from the Cobitidae was used as the outgroup. Both BI and ML analyses generated trees with almost the same topologies, in which six major clades (here named clades A-G) could be distinguished (Fig. 6). Clade A, which included only one species in genus Osteochilichthys, diverged first. Then it was followed by clade B, which consisted of two species in Labeo and Decorus. The vast majority of species belonged to the remaining clades. Clade C included species from the following five genera: Labeo, Cirrhinus, Bangana, Gymnostomus and Incisilabeo. Although most of the species in Labeo were in this clade, they did not form a monophyletic group. Clade D included species in the following genera: Lobocheilos, Henicorhynchus, Epalzeorhynchos, Crossocheilus, Thynnichthys and Osteochilus. Clade E included species mainly in Garra and Tariqilabeo. Clade F contained the most number of genera, such as: Garra, Semilabeo, Parasinilabeo, Prolixicheilu, Rectoris, Ptychidio, Pseudocrossocheilus, Sinocrossocheilus, Decorus, Discogobio, Paraqianlabeo, Cophecheilu and Pseudogyrinocheilus. Although many of the genera were modified and reclassified, based on recent studies and we updated all the names according to the catalogue of fishes (up to Dec 2022), there were obviously many genera which were non-monophyletic according to this phylogenetic tree (Fig. 6). However, R.luxiensis appeared in clade F with a sister-group species to R.posehensis and the two species supported a monophyletic Rectoris.

Figure 6.

Figure 6.

Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic relationship obtained from the ML method, based on 13 PCGs. Note: the numbers on the branches indicate bootstrap values from ML and posterior probabilities from the BI method. The GenBank accession number of each species is given in the brackets after the name. Red highlights the phylogenetic position of R.luxiensis that we obtained in this study.

Discussion

We successfully sequenced and assembled the mitogenome of R.luxiensis, an endemic, but threatened fish of Labeoninae in the Yangtze River drainage, for the first time in this study. The mitogenome of R.luxiensis was 16,592 bp in length, which was similar to other known species of Labeoninae, such as 16,594 bp in Rectorisposehensis, 16,599 bp in Semilabeonotabilis and 16,600 bp in Pseudocrossocheilusliuchengensis (Wu et al. 2018, Liu et al. 2018). The slight length variations of mitogenomes of closely-related species usually resulted from the changes of tandem repeats within the control region and the lengths of intergenic regions or gene overlaps (Wang et al. 2020). Some characteristics of the mitogenome of R.luxiensis were also typical and similar to other Labeoninae fishes, including the contents and orders of 13 PCGs, 2rRNAs, 22 tRNAs and a D-LOOP and the encoding location for most genes was on the H-strand, with and only the ND6 gene and eight tRNAs on the L-strand (Wu et al. 2018, Liu et al. 2018).

The nucleotide compositions and codon usages of mitogenomes of Cyprinidae were generally similar, but some detectable differences remained. For example, in R.luxiensis, only the COX1 gene started with GTG, but for Rhodeuscyanorostris, both ND1 and COX1 genes started with GTG (Li et al. 2022). Whether the diverse usage of start codons amongst different species was generated randomly or with some evolutionarily meaningful preferences, this was an interesting question of selection, but without being given much attention. In addition, the secondary structure of tRNAs of R.luxiensis was overall conservative of vertebrate mitogenomes by having typical Watson-Crick pairings (G-C and A-U) (Wolstenholme 1992); however, there were still dozens of non-typical forms such as UG pairing in some different stem regions (Fig. 3), which was also revealed from other studies (e.g. Zhao et al. (2021)). Recent studies have indicated that tRNAs matched with non-typical pairings could also convert into fully functional proteins through post-transcriptional mechanisms (Chao et al. 2008, Pons et al. 2014).

Mitochondrial DNA sequences are widely used in phylogenetic studies (Sun et al. 2017, Tang et al. 2018, Chang et al. 2020). It has been generally recognised that the complete mitogenome could uncover evolutionary relationships better than individual mitochondrial genes (Hou et al. 2020). In this study, a phylogenetic hypothesis of Labeoninae was able to be reconstructed while using the mitogenomes of 91 representative species, including the R.luxiensis which we sequenced in this study. Previous studies have shown that the monophyly of Labeoninae was supported, but the inter-generic relationships were usually controversial (e.g. Li et al. (2005), Wang et al. (2020)). Our study suggested that some previous inconsistences may result from the limited phylogenetic information from less gene fragments. For instance, the sister group relationship of Rectoris and Pseudocrossocheilus in our study was consistent with a previous study that was also based on mitogenomes (Wang and Zeng 2021), but this relationship was not revealed from the study from a single 16S rRNA gene (Li et al. 2005). We found that the phylogenetic trees of the mitochondrial and nuclear genes in Labeoninae were sometimes different, possibly due to the different evolutionary rates and variable informative sites (Lynch et al. 2006). For example, Rectoris and Semilabeo were once revealed as a sister group relationship, based on two nuclear genes (Zheng et al. 2010b), which was also inconsistent with our study (Fig. 6).

In addition, our study also suggested that some inconsistent inter-generic relationships within Labeoninae might be from the non-monophyletic nature of some traditionally recognised genera (mostly from morphological hypotheses), such as Cirrhinus, Decorus, Garra, Labeo and Pseudocrossocheilus which we detected in this study (Fig. 6). Thus, future studies should pay more attention to these genera. Let us take Garra, a traditionally large group that was erected as early as 1822, as an example. It has usually served as a taxonomic wastebasket for species having disc on the lower lip but could not be assigned into other genera. Recently, some new genera have been identified and separated from Garra-like species, such as Sinigarra (Zhang et al. 2012) and Guigarra (Wang et al. 2022). Although with some of the inconsistent intergeneric relationships, the genera included in each major clade were largely similar with previous studies (Zheng et al. 2010b, Yang et al. 2012, Li and Han 2018, Pan et al. 2020). In brief, the phylogenetic relationships within Labeoninae are still far from resolved; thus, more and more molecular data, such as the one we reported in this study, will be necessary and helpful for understanding the evolutionary history and diversity of this complicated, but fantastic group.

Data resources

The genome sequence data are available in GenBank (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) under accession no. OP132373.

Funding

This work was supported in part by the Innovation Platform and Talent Plan of Hunan Province [2020RC3057]; the National Natural Science Foundation of China [32060128]; Zhilan foundation [2020040371B, 2022010011B] and opening projects of Hunan Engineering Laboratory for Chinese Giant Salamander’s Resource Protection and Comprehensive Utilization [DNGC2211].

Conflicts of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References

  1. Boore J. L. Animal mitochondrial genomes. Nucleic Acids Research. 1999;27(8):1767–1780. doi: 10.1093/nar/27.8.1767. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chang H., Qiu Z., Yuan H., Wang X., Li X., Sun H., Guo X., Lu Y., Feng X., Majid M., Huang Y. Evolutionary rates of and selective constraints on the mitochondrial genomes of Orthoptera insects with different wing types. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2020;145(106734) doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2020.106734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chao J. A., Patskovsky Y., Almo S. C., Singer R. H. Structural basis for the coevolution of a viral RNA-protein complex. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology. 2008;15:103–105. doi: 10.1038/nsmb1327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dierckxsens N., Mardulyn P., Smits G. NOVOPlasty: de novo assembly of organelle genomes from whole genome data. Nucleic Acids Research. 2017;45(4):e18–e18. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw955.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Donath A., J&uuml hling, F. Al-Arab, M. Bernhart, H. S., Reinhardt F., Stadler P. F., Middendorf M., Bernt M. Improved annotation of protein-coding genes boundaries in metazoan mitochondrial genomes. Nucleic Acids Research. 2019;47(20):10543–10552. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz833. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fricke R., Eschmeyer W. N., & Van der Laan R. ECoF. Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes: Genera, Species, References. http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/Ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/Ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp
  7. Hao X. Y., Liu J. Q., Chiba H., Xiao J. T., Yuan X. Q. Complete mitochondrial genomes of three skippers in the tribe Aeromachini (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae: Hesperiinae) and their phylogenetic implications. Ecology and Evolution. 2021;11(12):8381–8393. doi: 10.1002/ece3.7666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hou X. J., Lin H. D., Tang W. Q., Liu D., Han C. C., Yang J. Q. Complete mitochondrial genome of the freshwater fish Acrossocheiluslongipinnis (Teleostei: Cyprinidae): genome characterization and phylogenetic analysis. Biologia. 2020;75(11):1871–1880. doi: 10.2478/s11756-020-00440-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Huang Y., Yang J., Chen X. Stenorynchoacrumxijiangensis, a new genus and a new species of Labeoninae fish from Guangxi, China (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) Zootaxa. 2014;3793:379–86. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3793.3.6.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Jiang Wansheng, Qiu Ying, Pan Xiaofu, Zhang Yuanwei, Wang Xiaoai, Lv Yunyun, Bian Chao, Li Jia, You Xinxin, Chen Jieming, Yang Kunfeng, Yang Jinlong, Sun Chao, Liu Qian, Cheng Le, Yang Junxing, Shi Qiong. Genome Assembly for a Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau “3E” Fish, Anabarilius grahami (Regan), and Its Evolutionary and Genetic Applications. Frontiers in Genetics. 2018;9 doi: 10.3389/fgene.2018.00614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lanfear R., Frandsen P. B., Wright A. M., Senfeld T., Calcott B. PartitionFinder 2: New Methods for Selecting Partitioned Models of Evolution for Molecular and Morphological Phylogenetic Analyses. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2017;34(3):772–773. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Li J. B., Wang X. Z., He S. P., Chen Y. Y. Phylogenetic studies of Chinese labeonine fishes (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) based on the mitochondrial 16S rRNA gene. Progress in Natural Science. 2005;15(3):213–219. doi: 10.1080/10020070512331342020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Li Q., Han C. The complete mitochondrial genome of Ptychidiomacrops (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae) and its phylogenetic implications. Conservation Genetics Resources. 2018;10:379–382. doi: 10.1007/s12686-017-0829-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Liu B., Cheng G., Shi X. Characterization of the complete mitochondrial genome of Pseudocrossocheilusliuchengensis (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae) Mitochondrial DNA B Resources. 2018;3(2):543–544. doi: 10.1080/23802359.2018.1467216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Li W. J, Qiu Ning, Du He. Jun. Complete mitochondrial genome of Rhodeuscyanorostris (Teleostei, Cyprinidae): characterization and phylogenetic analysis. ZooKeys. 2022;1081:111–125. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.1081.77043. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Lowe T. M., Chan P. P. tRNAscan-SE On-line: integrating search and context for analysis of transfer RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Research. 2016;44(W1):W54-7–7. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw413.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lynch M., Koskella B., Schaack S. Mutation pressure and the evolution of organelle genomic architecture. Science. 2006;311(5768):1727–1730. doi: 10.1126/science.1118884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Michael T., Pascal L., Tommaso P. GeSeq-versatile and accurate annotation of organelle genomes. Nucleic Acids Research. 2017;45(W1):W6–W11. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Moberly J. G., Bernards M. T., Waynant K. V. Key features and updates for Origin 2018. Journal of Cheminform. 2018;10(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s13321-018-0259-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Nelson J. S., Grande T. C., Wilson M. V.H. Fishes of the World Animal Science and Zoology. 5th. John Wiley and Sons Inc; 2016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Pan X. Y, Shao L. Y, Lao J. Q, Kuang T. X, Chen J. H, Zhou L. Mitochondrial genome of Parasinilabeolongicorpus provides insights into the phylogeny of Labeoninae. Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2020;5(3):3044–3045. doi: 10.1080/23802359.2020.1798298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Perna N. T., Kocher T. D. Patterns of nucleotide composition at fourfold degenerate sites of animal mitochondrial genomes. Journal of Molecular Evolution. 1995;41(3):353–358. doi: 10.1007/BF00186547. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Pons J., Bauzà-Ribot M. M., Jaume D., Juan C. Next-generation sequencing, phylogenetic signal and comparative mitogenomic analyses in Metacrangonyctidae (Amphipoda: Crustacea) BioMed Central. 2014;15:566. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ronquist F., Teslenko M., Van Der Mark P., Ayres D. L., Darling A., Höhna S., Larget B., Liu L., Suchard M. A., A. M., Huelsenbeck J. P. MrBayes 3.2: efficient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematic Biology. 2012;61(3):539–542. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/sys029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Rozas J., Ferrer-Mata A., Sánchez-DelBarrio J. C., Guirao-Rico S., Guirao-Rico S., Librado P., Ramos-Onsins S. E., Sánchez-Gracia A. DnaSP 6: DNA sequence polymorphism analysis of large data sets. Molecular Biology And Evolution. 2017;34(12):3299–3302. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Simon S., Hadrys H. A. A comparative analysis of complete mitochondrial genomes among Hexapoda. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2013;69(2):393–403. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2013.03.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Stamatakis A. Using RAxML to infer phylogenies. Current Protocols in Bioinformatics. 2015;51:6–14. doi: 10.1002/0471250953.bi0614s51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Sun G., Xia T., Yang X., Zhao C., Liu G., Sha W., Zhang H. The complete mitochondrial genome sequence of Eophonamigratoria (Passeriformes Fringillidae) Mitochondrial DNA Part B: Resources. 2016;1(1):753–754. doi: 10.1080/23802359.2016.1209098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Sun S., Hui M., Wang M., Sha Z. The complete mitochondrial genome of the alvinocaridid shrimp Shinkaicaris leurokolos (Decapoda, Caridea): Insight into the mitochondrial genetic basis of deep-sea hydrothermal vent adaptation in the shrimp. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part D: Genomics and Proteomics. 2017;25:42–52. doi: 10.1016/j.cbd.2017.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Tamura K., Stecher G., Kumar S. MEGA11: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 11. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2021;38(7):3022–3027. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Tang J. M., Li F., Cheng T. Y., Duan D. Y., Liu G. H. Comparative analyses of the mitochondrialgenome of the sheep ked Melophagusovinus (Diptera: Hippoboscidae) from different geographical origins in China. Parasitology Research. 2018;117(8):2677–2683. doi: 10.1007/s00436-018-5925-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wang I. C., Lin H. D., Liang C. M., Huang C. C., Wang R. D., Yang J. Q., Wang W. K. Complete mitochondrial genome of the freshwater fish Onychostomalepturum (Teleostei, Cyprinidae): genome characterization and phylogenetic analysis. ZooKeys. 2020;1005:57–72. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.1005.57592. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Wang X., Zeng S. The complete mitochondrial genome of Paraqianlabeolineatus (Cyprinidae: Labeoninae) Mitochondrial DNA B Resources. 2021;6(4):1351–1352. doi: 10.1080/23802359.2021.1907799.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang Z. B., Chen X. Y., Zheng L. P. A new genus and species of disc-bearing Labeoninae (Teleostei: Cypriniformes) from Guangxi, China. Zoological Research. 2022;43(3):409–412. doi: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2021.230.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Wolstenholme D. R. Animal mitochondrial DNA: structure and evolution. International Review of Cytology. 1992;141:173–216. doi: 10.1016/S0074-7696(08)62066-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Wu L., Zhong S., Tan H., Wang K., Cheng G., Chen X., Zhang M. The complete mitochondrial genome of Semilabeonotabilis (Cyprinidae: Labeoninae) and phylogenetic implications. Mitochondrial DNA B Resources. 2018;3(2):568–569. doi: 10.1080/23802359.2018.1467231.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Yang L., Arunachalam M., Sado T. Molecular phylogeny of the cyprinid tribe Labeonini (Teleostei: Cypriniformes) Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2012;65(2):362–379. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2012.06.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Yang L., Sado T., Vincent Hirt M., Pasco-Viel E., Arunachalam M., Li J., Wang X., Freyhof J., Saitoh K., AM Simons. Phylogeny and polyploidy: Resolving the classification of cyprinine fishes (Teleostei: Cypriniformes) Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2015;85:97–116. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2015.01.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Yao M., He Y., Peng Z. G. Lanlabeo duanensis, a new genus and species of labeonin fish (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from southern China. Zootaxa. 2018;4471(3):556–568. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4471.3.7.. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Yue P. Q., et al. Fauna Sinica, Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes III [M] Beijing Science Press; 2000. 215-216 [Google Scholar]
  41. Zhang E., Zhou W., Zhang E. Sinigarranapoense, a new genus and species of labeonin fishes (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from Guangxi Province, South China. Zootaxa. 2012;3586(3586):17–25. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3586.1.4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhao L., Wei J. F., Zhao W. Q., Chen C., Gao Z. Y., Zhao Q. The complete mitochondrial genome of Pentatomarufipes (Hemiptera, Pentatomidae) and its phylogenetic implications. ZooKeys. 2021;1042:51–72. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.1042.62302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Zheng L. P., Chen X. Y., Yang J. X. A new species of genus Pseudogyrinocheilus (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from Guangxi, China. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 2010;87:93–97. doi: 10.1007/s10641-009-9555-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Zheng L. P., Yang J. X., Chen X. Y. Phylogenetic relationships of the Chinese Labeoninae (Teleostei, Cypriniformes) derived from two nuclear and three mitochondrial genes. Zoologica Scripta. 2010;39(6):559–571. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-6409.2010.00441.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Zheng L. P., Chen X. Y., Yang J. X. Molecular systematics of the Labeonini inhabiting the karst regions in southwest China (Teleostei, Cypriniformes) Zookeys. 2016;(612):133–14. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.612.9085.. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Biodiversity Data Journal are provided here courtesy of Pensoft Publishers

RESOURCES