Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorYu, Li
dc.contributor.authorPeng, Dan
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Jiang
dc.contributor.authorLuan, Pengtao
dc.contributor.authorLiang, Lu
dc.contributor.authorLee, Hang
dc.contributor.authorLee, Muyeong
dc.contributor.authorRyder, Oliver A.
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Yaping
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-01T21:53:02Z
dc.date.available2021-03-01T21:53:02Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.issn1471-2148
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/1471-2148-11-92
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12634/880
dc.description.abstractBackground Mustelidae, as the largest and most-diverse family of order Carnivora, comprises eight subfamilies. Phylogenetic relationships among these Mustelidae subfamilies remain argumentative subjects in recent years. One of the main reasons is that the mustelids represent a typical example of rapid evolutionary radiation and recent speciation event. Prior investigation has been concentrated on the application of different mitochondrial (mt) sequence and nuclear protein-coding data, herein we employ 17 nuclear non-coding loci (>15 kb), in conjunction with mt complete genome data (>16 kb), to clarify these enigmatic problems. Results The combined nuclear intron and mt genome analyses both robustly support that Taxidiinae diverged first, followed by Melinae. Lutrinae and Mustelinae are grouped together in all analyses with strong supports. The position of Helictidinae, however, is enigmatic because the mt genome analysis places it to the clade uniting Lutrinae and Mustelinae, whereas the nuclear intron analysis favores a novel view supporting a closer relationship of Helictidinae to Martinae. This finding emphasizes a need to add more data and include more taxa to resolve this problem. In addition, the molecular dating provides insights into the time scale of the origin and diversification of the Mustelidae subfamilies. Finally, the phylogenetic performances and limits of nuclear introns and mt genes are discussed in the context of Mustelidae phylogeny. Conclusion Our study not only brings new perspectives on the previously obscured phylogenetic relationships among Mustelidae subfamilies, but also provides another example demonstrating the effectiveness of nuclear non-coding loci for reconstructing evolutionary histories in a group that has undergone rapid bursts of speciation.
dc.description.sponsorship
dc.language.isoen
dc.relation.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-11-92
dc.rights© 2011 Yu et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0
dc.subjectMUSTELIDS
dc.subjectGENOMICS
dc.subjectEVOLUTION
dc.subjectTAXONOMIES
dc.subjectRESEARCH
dc.subjectBIODIVERSITY
dc.titleOn the phylogeny of Mustelidae subfamilies: analysis of seventeen nuclear non-coding loci and mitochondrial complete genomes
dc.typeArticle
dc.source.journaltitleBMC Evolutionary Biology
dc.source.volume11
dc.source.beginpage92
refterms.dateFOA2021-03-01T21:57:19Z
html.description.abstractBackground Mustelidae, as the largest and most-diverse family of order Carnivora, comprises eight subfamilies. Phylogenetic relationships among these Mustelidae subfamilies remain argumentative subjects in recent years. One of the main reasons is that the mustelids represent a typical example of rapid evolutionary radiation and recent speciation event. Prior investigation has been concentrated on the application of different mitochondrial (mt) sequence and nuclear protein-coding data, herein we employ 17 nuclear non-coding loci (>15 kb), in conjunction with mt complete genome data (>16 kb), to clarify these enigmatic problems. Results The combined nuclear intron and mt genome analyses both robustly support that Taxidiinae diverged first, followed by Melinae. Lutrinae and Mustelinae are grouped together in all analyses with strong supports. The position of Helictidinae, however, is enigmatic because the mt genome analysis places it to the clade uniting Lutrinae and Mustelinae, whereas the nuclear intron analysis favores a novel view supporting a closer relationship of Helictidinae to Martinae. This finding emphasizes a need to add more data and include more taxa to resolve this problem. In addition, the molecular dating provides insights into the time scale of the origin and diversification of the Mustelidae subfamilies. Finally, the phylogenetic performances and limits of nuclear introns and mt genes are discussed in the context of Mustelidae phylogeny. Conclusion Our study not only brings new perspectives on the previously obscured phylogenetic relationships among Mustelidae subfamilies, but also provides another example demonstrating the effectiveness of nuclear non-coding loci for reconstructing evolutionary histories in a group that has undergone rapid bursts of speciation.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Yu_2011_BMCEvolutionaryBiology.pdf
Size:
1.527Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • SDZWA Research Publications
    Peer reviewed and scientific works by San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance staff. Includes books, book sections, articles and conference publications and presentations.

Show simple item record

© 2011 Yu et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2011 Yu et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.