Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 87, Issue 7, pp 843–853 | Cite as

Phylogenetic analysis of chloroplast restriction enzyme site mutations in the Saccharinae Griseb. subtribe of the Andropogoneae Dumort. tribe

  • B. W. S. Sobral
  • D. P. V. Braga
  • E. S. LaHood
  • P. Keim
Article
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Chloroplast (cp) DNA from 32 genotypes representing eight genera and 19 species from the Andropogoneae tribe was analyzed using 15 restriction enzymes and Southern hybridization with 12 cpDNA probes that span the complete rice chloroplast genome. Six of the genera, Saccharum, Miscanthus, Erianthus, Narenga, Eccoilopus, and Sclerostachya, are part of the Saccharinae subtribe, whereas the other two, Zea and Sorghum, were used as outgroups. Narenga, Miscanthus, Erianthus, and Sclerostachya are presumed to have been involved in the evolution of Saccharum officinarum (“noble” or high sucrose sugarcane) via S. spontaneum and S. robustum. Southern hybridization with the rice cpDNA probes surveyed approximately 3% of the S. officinarum ‘Black Cheribon’ genome and yielded 62 restriction site mutations (18 informative) that were analyzed using cladistic parsimony and maximum likelihood. These site mutations placed the 32 genotypes into nine different chloroplast groups; seven from within the Saccharinae subtribe and the two outgroups (maize and Sorghum). Phylogenetic inferrence under various assumptions showed that the maternal lineages of Narenga, Miscanthus, Sclerostachya, and Saccharum formed a monophyletic group. This group displayed little variation. On the other hand, 5 of 6 Erianthus species and Eccoilopus longisetosus formed a separate group. The ‘Old World’ Erianthus/Eccoilopus chloroplast was very different from that of the rest of the ‘Saccharum complex’ members and was slightly more related to that of Sorghum bicolor. Placement of these Erianthus/Eccoilopus genotypes was, therefore, in conflict with analyses based on morphology. Surprisingly, Erianthus trinii, a New World species, had the same restriction sites as did one Miscanthus sinensis. One Miscanthus sp. from New Guinea that has a very high chromosome number (2n=192) had the same restriction sites as the majority of the Saccharum genus, suggesting that introgression between these genera occurs in the wild. The Saccharum genus was separated into two clades by single site mutation: one containing S. spontaneum, and the other containing all of the remaining Saccharum species and all 8 commerical hybrids (from various regions of the world). A physical map of the chloroplast of Saccharum officinarum ‘Black Cheribon’ was constructed using 5 restriction enzymes.

Key words

Sugarcane Saccharm Evolution Cytoplasmic inheritance Restriction mapping Cladistics Parsimony Dollo parsimony Wagner parsiomony Maximum likelihood Saccharum complex 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alberts VA, Mischler BD, Chase MW (1992) Charactertate weighing for restriction site data in phylogenetic reconstruction, with an example from chloroplast DNA. In: Soltis PS, Soltis DE, Doyle JJ (eds) Molecular systematics of plants. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp369–403Google Scholar
  2. Al-Janabi SM, Honeycutt RJ, McClelland M, Sobral BWS (1993) A genetic linkage map of Saccharum spontaneum (L.) ‘SES 208’. Genetics 134:1249–1260Google Scholar
  3. Artschwager E (1954) A taxonomic study of Saccharum sinense Roxb. and S. barberi Jeswiet. USDA Tech Bull No. 1089, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  4. Barbier P, Morishima H, Ishihama A (1991) Phylogenetic relationships of annual and perennial rice: probing by direct DNA sequencing. Theor Appl Genet 81:693–702Google Scholar
  5. Bor NL (1960) The grasses of Burma, Ceylon, India and Pakistan. Pergamon Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowman CM, Bonnard G, Dyer TA (1983) Chloroplast DNA variation between species of Triticum and Aegilops: location of the variation on the chloroplast genome and its relevance to the inheritance and classification of the cytoplasm. Theor Appl Genet 65:247–262Google Scholar
  7. Brandes EW, Sartoris GB, Grassl CO (1939) Assembling and evaluating wild forms of sugarcane and closely related plants. Proc 6th Int Soc Sugarcane Technol Congr: 128–154Google Scholar
  8. Bremer B (1991) Restriction site data from chloroplast DNA for phylogenetic reconstruction: is there only one accurate way of scoring? Plant Syst. Evol 175:39–54Google Scholar
  9. Burner DM (1991) Cytogenetic analyses of sugarcane relatives (Andropogoneae: Saccharinae). Euphytica 54:125–133Google Scholar
  10. Burnquist WB (1991) Development and application of restriction fragment length polymorphism technology in sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) breeding. PhD thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca N.Y.Google Scholar
  11. Celarier RP (1956) Cytotaxonomy of the Andropogoneae. I. Subtribes Dimeriinae and Saccharinae. Cytologia 21:272–291Google Scholar
  12. Clayton WD, Renvoize SA (1986) Genera Graminum: grasses of the world. Kew Bulletin Additional Series XIII, Her Majesty's Stationary Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. daSilva J, Sorrells ME, Burnquist WL, Tanksley SD (1993) Sugarcane (Saccharum spontaneum) genome analysis by means of restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Genome 36:782–791Google Scholar
  14. Daniels J, Smith P, Paton N, Williams CA (1975) The origin of the genus Saccharum. Sugarcane Breed Newsl 36:24–39Google Scholar
  15. DeBry RW, Slade NA (1985) Cladistic analysis of restriction endonuclease restriction maps within a maximum-likelihood framework. Syst Zool 34:21–34Google Scholar
  16. Donoghue MJ, Sanderson MJ (1992) The suitability of molecular and morphological evidence in reconstructing plant phylogeny. In: Soltis PM, Soltis DE, Doyle JJ (eds) Molecular systematics of plants. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 340–368Google Scholar
  17. Duval MR, Doebley J (1990) Restriction site variation in the chloroplast genome of Sorghum (Poaceae). Syst Bot 15:472–480Google Scholar
  18. Edwards A, Cavali-Sforza L (1963) The reconstruction of evolution. Ann Hum Genet 27:105Google Scholar
  19. Farris JS (1970) Methods for computing Wagner trees. Syst Zool 34:21–34Google Scholar
  20. Farris JS (1977) Phylogenetic analysis under Dollo's law. Syst. Zool 26:77–88Google Scholar
  21. Feinberg AP, Vogelstein B (1983) A technique for radiolabelling DNA restriction fragments to a high specific activity. Anal Biochem 132:6–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Felsenstein J (1973) Maximum likelihood and minimum-step methods for estimating evolutionary trees from data on discrete characters. Syst Zool 22:240–249Google Scholar
  23. Felsenstein J (1989) PHYLIP-Phylogeny Inference Package. Cladistics 5:164–166Google Scholar
  24. Glaszmann JC, Noyer JL, Fautret A, Feldmann P, Lanaud C (1989) Biochemical genetic markers in sugarcane. Theor Appl Genet 78:537–543Google Scholar
  25. Glaszmann JC, Lu YH, Lanaud C (1990) Variation of nuclear ribosomal DNA in sugarcane. J Genet Breed 44:191–198Google Scholar
  26. Gottlieb LD (1988) Towards molecular genetics in Clarkia: gene duplications and molecular characterization of PGI genes. Ann Mo Bot Gard 75:1169–1179Google Scholar
  27. Grassl CO (1974) The origin of sugarcane. Sugarcane Breed Newsl 34:10–18Google Scholar
  28. Grassl CO (1977) The origin of sugar-producing cultivars of Saccharum. Sugarcane Breed Newsl 39:8–33Google Scholar
  29. Hartley W (1958) Studies on the origin, evolution, and distribution of the Gramineae. I. The tribe Andropogoneae. Aust J Bot 6:116–128Google Scholar
  30. Hennig W (1965) Phylogenetic systematics. Annu Rev Entomol 10:97–116Google Scholar
  31. Honeycutt RJ, BWS Sobral, P Keim, Irvine JE (1992) A rapid DNA extraction method for sugarcane and its relatives. Plant Mol Biol Rep 10:66–72Google Scholar
  32. Keim P, Beavis W, Schupp J, Freestone R (1992) Evaluation of soybean RFLP marker diveristy in adapted germplasm. Theor Appl Genet 85:205–212Google Scholar
  33. Keng YL (1957) Claves Generum et Specierum Graminearum Primarium Sinicarum. PekingGoogle Scholar
  34. Kluge AG, Farris JS (1969) Quantitative phylogenetics and the evolution of anurans. Syst Zool 18:1–32Google Scholar
  35. Manglesdorf AJ (1983) Cytoplasmic diveristy in relation to pests and pathogens. Sugarcane Breed Newsl 45:45–49Google Scholar
  36. Maniatis T, Fritsch E, Sambrook J (1982) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.Google Scholar
  37. Mohan N, Sreenivasan TV (1983) Chromosome number in the genus Erianthus, Michx. (Poaceae) of Indonesian Arquipelago. Cell Chromosome Res 6:14–16Google Scholar
  38. Moriya A (1990) List of chromosome numbers in the genus Saccharum and related genera. Jpn J Genet 16:126–136Google Scholar
  39. Mukherjee SK (1957) Origin and distribution of Saccharum. Bot Gaz 119:55–61Google Scholar
  40. Nair MK, Ratnambal MJ (1965) Pachytene analysis in Narenga x Sclerostachya hybrid. Proc 12th Int Soc Sugarcane Technol Congr:875–877Google Scholar
  41. Palmer JD, Shields CR, Cohen DB, Orton TJ (1983) Chloroplast DNA evolution and the origin of amphidiploid Brassica species. Theor Appl Genet 65:181–189Google Scholar
  42. Panje RR, Babu CN (1960) Studies in Saccharum spontaneum distribution and geographical association of chromosome numbers. Cytologia 25:152–172Google Scholar
  43. Parthasarathy N (1953) Chromosome elimination in Saccharum. Nature 168:383–384Google Scholar
  44. Price S (1957) Cytological studies in Saccharum and allied genera. III. Chromosome numbers in interspecific hybrids. Bot Gaz 144–159Google Scholar
  45. Price S (1968) Chromosome transmission by Saccharum robustum in interspecific crosses. J Hered 59:245–247Google Scholar
  46. Roach BT, Daniels J (1987) A review of the origin and improvement of sugarcane. In: Copersucar Int Sugarcane Breed Workshop. Copersucar, SP, Brazil, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  47. Sankoff D (1975) Minimal mutation trees of sequences. Siam J Appl Math 28:35–42Google Scholar
  48. Sankoff D, Morel C, Cederegen RJ (1983) Simultaneous comparison of three or more sequences related by a tree. In: Sankoff D, Krustal B (eds) Time warps, string edits, and macromolecules: the theory and practice of sequence comparisons. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., pp 253–263Google Scholar
  49. Shimada H, Suiguira M (1991) Fine structural features of the chloroplast genome: comparison of the sequenced chloroplast genomes. Nucleic Acids Res 19:983–995Google Scholar
  50. Shimada H, Whittier RF, Hiratsuka J, Maeda Y, Hirai A, Sugiura M (1989) A physical map and clone bank of rice (Oryza sativa) chloroplast genome. Plant Mol Biol Rep 7:284–291Google Scholar
  51. Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Milligan BG (1992) Intraspecific chloroplast variation: systematic and phylogenetic implications. In: Soltis PS, Soltis DE, Doyle JJ (eds) Molecular systematics of plants. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 117–150Google Scholar
  52. Stebbins GL (1956) Cytogenetics and evolution of the grass family. Am J Bot 43:890–905Google Scholar
  53. Swofford DL (1991) PAUP: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.0s Computer program distributed by the Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Ill.Google Scholar
  54. Systma KJ, Smith JF, Berry PE (1991) Biogeography and evolution of morphology, breeding systems, flavonoids, and chloroplast DNA in the four Old World species of Fuchsia (Onagraceae). Syst Bot 16:257–269Google Scholar
  55. Wilson MA, Gaut B, Clegg MT (1990) Chloroplast DNA evolves slowly in the palm family (Arecaceae). Mol Biol Evol 7:303–314Google Scholar
  56. Wolfe KH, Sharp PM, Li WH (1989) Rates of synonomous substitution in plant nuclear genes. J Mol Evol 29:208–211Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. W. S. Sobral
    • 1
  • D. P. V. Braga
    • 2
  • E. S. LaHood
    • 2
  • P. Keim
    • 2
  1. 1.California Institute of Biological ResearchLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations