Characterizing gene tree conflict in plastome-inferred phylogenies

PeerJ. 2019 Sep 24:7:e7747. doi: 10.7717/peerj.7747. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

Evolutionary relationships among plants have been inferred primarily using chloroplast data. To date, no study has comprehensively examined the plastome for gene tree conflict. Using a broad sampling of angiosperm plastomes, we characterize gene tree conflict among plastid genes at various time scales and explore correlates to conflict (e.g., evolutionary rate, gene length, molecule type). We uncover notable gene tree conflict against a backdrop of largely uninformative genes. We find alignment length and tree length are strong predictors of concordance, and that nucleotides outperform amino acids. Of the most commonly used markers, matK, greatly outperforms rbcL; however, the rarely used gene rpoC2 is the top-performing gene in every analysis. We find that rpoC2 reconstructs angiosperm phylogeny as well as the entire concatenated set of protein-coding chloroplast genes. Our results suggest that longer genes are superior for phylogeny reconstruction. The alleviation of some conflict through the use of nucleotides suggests that stochastic and systematic error is likely the root of most of the observed conflict, but further research on biological conflict within plastome is warranted given documented cases of heteroplasmic recombination. We suggest that researchers should filter genes for topological concordance when performing downstream comparative analyses on phylogenetic data, even when using chloroplast genomes.

Keywords: Angiosperms; Chloroplast; Gene tree conflict; Phylogenomics; Plastome; matK; rbcL; rpoC2.

Grants and funding

Joseph F. Walker was supported by a Rackham Predoctoral Fellowship. Gregory W. Stull was supported by a NSF Postdoctoral Fellowship (NSF DBI grant 1612032). Oscar M. Vargas was supported by NSF FESD 1338694 and DEB 1240869. Drew A. Larson was supported by NSF DEB grant 1458466. Nathanael Walker-Hale was supported by a Woolf Fisher Cambridge Scholarship. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.