Molecular Genetics and Genomics

, Volume 276, Issue 1, pp 56–70

Development of nuclear gene-derived molecular markers linked to legume genetic maps

  • Hong-Kyu Choi
  • Melissa A. Luckow
  • Jeff Doyle
  • Douglas R. Cook
Original Paper


The systematic identification of the orthologous features of related organisms greatly facilitates comparative genomics, including research on genome evolution and comparative genetic mapping. In this study, we selected 274 unique gene sequences for the development of PCR-based genetic markers across fifteen legume genomes, representing six crop or model legume species from the phaseoloid and inverted repeat loss clades (IRLC). DNA sequence analysis demonstrated that 129 of the amplified fragments represented single copy loci across most target diploid genomes. The majority of these markers are intron-spanning (70.5%) and linked to legume genetic maps (85.3%). The markers were grouped into four main categories: (1) intron-spanning relatively conserved, (2) intron-spanning diverged, (3) exon-derived conserved, and (4) exon-derived diverged. The extent of sequence divergence within each category indicates that the corresponding markers may have utility for assessing phylogenetic relationships at different, but overlapping, taxonomic levels. We tested marker performance on genomes that had not been previously sampled, representing 95 different species that span the diversity of the Fabaceae. Phylogenetic analyses support the orthology of amplified sequences, with the notable exception of an ambiguous affiliation of Lotus relative to the IRLC and phaseoloid clades.


Comparative genomics Legumes Phylogenetic analysis 


  1. Alvarez I, Wendel JF (2003) Ribosomal ITS sequences and plant phylogenetic inference. Mol Phylogenet Evol 29:417–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (2003) An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. Bot J Linn Soc 141:399–436Google Scholar
  3. Arabidopsis Genome Initiative (2000) Analysis of the genome sequence of the flowering plant A rabidopsis thaliana. Nature 408:796–815Google Scholar
  4. Bruneau A, Forest F, Herendeen PS, Klitgaard BB, Lewis GP (2001) Phylogenetic relationships in the Caesalpinioideae (Leguminosae) as inferred from chloroplast trnL intron sequences. Syst Bot 26:487–514Google Scholar
  5. Cannon SB, Zhu H, Baumgarten AM, Spangler R, May G, Cook DR, Young ND (2002) Diversity, distribution, and ancient taxonomic relationships within the TIR and non-TIR NBS-LRR resistance gene subfamilies. J Mol Evol 54:548–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Causier B, Castillo R, Zhou J, Ingram R, Xue Y, Schwarz-Sommer Z, Davies B (2005) Evolution in action: following function in duplicated floral homeotic genes. Curr Biol 15:1508–1512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Choi HK, Kim D, Uhm T, Limpens E, Lim H et al (2004a) A sequence-based genetic map of Medicago truncatula and comparison of marker co-linearity with Medicago sativa. Genetics 166:1463–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi HK, Mun JH, Kim DJ, Zhu H, Baek JM et al (2004b) Estimating genome conservation between crop and model legume species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:15289–15294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doyle JJ, Gaut BS (2000) Evolution of genes and taxa: a primer. Plant Mol Biol 42:1–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doyle JJ, Luckow MA (2003) The rest of the iceberg: legume diversity and evolution in a phylogenetic context. Plant Physiol 131:900–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fulton TM, Van der Hoeven R, Eannetta NT, Tanksley SD (2002) Identification, analysis, and utilization of conserved ortholog set markers for comparative genomics in higher plants. Plant Cell 14:1457–1467PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaut BS (1998) Molecular clocks and nucleotide substitution rate in higher plants. Evol Biol 35:93–120Google Scholar
  13. Kajita T, Ohashi H, Tateishi Y, Bailey CD, Doyle JJ (2001) RbcL and legume phylogeny, with particular reference to Phaseoleae, Millettieae and allies. Syst Bot 26:515–536Google Scholar
  14. Koonin EV (2001) An apology for orthologs—or brave new memes. Genome Biol 2(4):1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lavin M, Eshbaugh E, Hu JM, Mathews S, Sharrock RA (1998) Monophyletic subgroups of the tribe Millettieae (Leguminosae) as revealed by phytochrome nucleotide sequence data. Am J Bot 85:412–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewis G, Schire B, Mackinder B, Lock M (2005) Legumes of the World. Royal Botanic Gardens, KewGoogle Scholar
  17. Pennington RT, Lavin M, Ireland H, Klitgaard B, Preston J et al (2001) Phylogenetic relationships of basal papilionoid legumes based upon sequences of the chloroplast trnL intron. Syst Bot 26:537–556Google Scholar
  18. Rokas A, Williams BL, King N, Carroll SB (2003) Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies. Nature 425:798–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sanderson MJ, Shaffer HB (2002)Troubleshooting molecular phylogenetic analyses. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:49–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sang T (2002) Utility of low-copy nuclear gene sequences in plant phylogenetics. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol 37:121–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scherson R, Choi HK, Cook DR, Sanderson M (2005) Phylogenetics of New World Astragalus: screening of novel nuclear loci for the reconstruction of phylogenies at low taxonomic levels. Brittonia 57:56–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schlueter JA, Dixon P, Granger C, Grant D, Clark L et al (2004) Mining EST databases to resolve evolutionary events in major crop species. Genome 47:868–876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Small RL, Cronn RC, Wendel JF (2004) Use of nuclear genes for phylogeny reconstruction in plants. Aust Syst Bot 17:145–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Soltis DE, Albert VA, Savolainen V, Hilu K, Qiu YL et al (2004) Genome-scale data, angiosperm relationships, and ‘ending incongruence’: a cautionary tale in phylogenetics. Trends Plant Sci 9:477–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Swofford DL (2003) PAUP*, phylogenetic analyses using parsimony (*and other methods). Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, Version 4.0b10Google Scholar
  26. Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F, Hoggins DG (1997) The CLUSYAL-X windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res 25:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wendel JF, Doyle JJ (1998) Phylogenetic incongruence: window into genome history and molecular evolution. In: Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Doyle JJ (eds) Molecular systematics of plants, 2nd edn. pp 265–296Google Scholar
  28. Wojciechowski MF, Lavin M, Sanderson MJ (2004) A phylogeny of legumes (Leguminosae) based on analyses of the plastid matK gene resolves many well-supported subclades within the family. Am J Bot 91:1846–1862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wolfe KH, Sharp PM, Li WH (1989) Rates of the synonymous substitution in plant nuclear genes. J Mol Evol 29:208–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hong-Kyu Choi
    • 1
  • Melissa A. Luckow
    • 2
  • Jeff Doyle
    • 2
  • Douglas R. Cook
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant PathologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant BiologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations