Advertisement

Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 193, Issue 1–4, pp 95–106 | Cite as

Chloroplast DNA restriction site polymorphism inGenisteae (Leguminosae) suggests a common origin for European and American lupines

  • Abdelfattah Badr
  • William Martin
  • Uwe Jensen
Article

Abstract

Restriction site polymorphism in cpDNA of 35 legumes was studied in order to address natural relationships and geographic distribution within the tribeGenisteae. 386 sites were studied, 277 were polymorphic, 207 were informative. Phylogenetic inferences with distance and parsimony methods suggest that the American and MediterraneanLupinus species belong to a monophyletic group which arose from a single center of diversification. The data furthermore indicate thatLupinus should not be included in the tribeGenisteae since at the level of cpDNA polymorphismAnagyris foetida (tribeThermopsideae) appears more closely related to otherGenisteae thanLupinus does.

Key words

Genisteae Molecular phylogeny legumes biogeography disjunction chloroplast DNA 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bisby, F. A., 1981:Genisteae. — InPolhill, R. M., Raven, P. H., (Eds): Advances in Legume systematics1, pp. 409–425. — Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens.Google Scholar
  2. Bremer, B., Struwe, L., 1992: Phylogeny of theRubiaceae and theLoganiaceae: congruence or conflict between molecular and morphological data? — Amer. J. Bot.79: 1171–1184.Google Scholar
  3. Bruneau, A., Doyle, J. J., Palmer, J. D., 1990: A chloroplast DNA inversion as a subtribal character in thePhaseoleae (Leguminosae). — Syst. Bot.15: 378–386.Google Scholar
  4. Cristofolini, G., 1989: A serological contribution to the systematics of the genusLupinus (Fabaceae). — Pl. Syst. Evol.166: 265–278.Google Scholar
  5. , 1977: Serological systematics of the tribeGenisteae (Fabaceae). — Taxon26: 43–56.Google Scholar
  6. , 1984: Origin and diversification of theGenisteae (Fabaceae): a serosystematic purview. — Webbia38: 105–122.Google Scholar
  7. Dowling, T. E., Moritz, C., Palmer, J. D., 1990: Nucleic acids II. Restriction site analysis. — InHillis, D. M., Moritz, C., (Eds): Molecular systematics, pp. 250–317. — Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  8. Doyle, J. J., Doyle, J. L., 1987: A rapid DNA isolation procedure from small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. — Phytochem. Bull.19: 11–15.Google Scholar
  9. , 1990: A chloroplast DNA phylogeny of the wild perennial relatives of the soybean (Glycine subgenusGlycine): congruence with morphological and crossing groups. — Evolution44: 371–389.Google Scholar
  10. , 1992: Contributions of molecular data to papilionoid legume systematics. — InSoltis, P. S., Soltis, D. E., Doyle, J. J., (Eds): Molecular systematics of plants, pp. 223–251. — New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Dunn, D. B., 1971: A case of long range dispersal and rapid speciation inLupinus. — Trans. Missouri Acad. Sci.5: 26–38.Google Scholar
  12. Farris, J. S., 1988: Hennig 86 reference version 1.5. Computer software and manual. Publ. by the author.Google Scholar
  13. Faugeras, C., Paris, R., 1968: Chemitaxinomie des Papilionacées-Genistées. — Bull. Soc. Bot. France, Mém.1965: 75–102.Google Scholar
  14. Felsenstein, J., 1990: PHYLIP manual, version 3.3. Univ. of Calif., Univ. Herbarium, Berkeley, Calif.Google Scholar
  15. Feoli-Chiapella, L., Cristofolini, G., 1980: Sero-systematics ofCytisus sect.Trianthocytisus (Fabaceae). — Pl. Syst. Evol.136: 209–216.Google Scholar
  16. Gibbs, P. E., 1966: A revision of the genusGenista. — Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinburgh27: 11–99.Google Scholar
  17. Gladstones, J. S., 1974: Lupins of the Mediterranean region and Africa. — Dept. of Agricult. West Australia, Techn. Bull.26: 1–148.Google Scholar
  18. Harborne, J. B., 1969: Chemosystematics of theLeguminosae: flavonoid and isoflavonoid patterns in the tribeGenisteae. — Phytochemistry8: 1449–1456.Google Scholar
  19. Heywood, V. H., 1968: A synopsis of the European species ofCytisus and allied genera. — Feddes Repert.79: 20–23.Google Scholar
  20. Holubova-Klaskova, A., 1964: Bemerkungen zur Gliederung der GattungCytisus L. s.l. — Acta Univ. Carol. Praha, Biol., Suppl.2: 1–24.Google Scholar
  21. Hosaka, K., 1986: Who is the mother of the potato? — Restriction endonuclease analysis of chloroplast DNA of cultivated potatoes. — Theor. Appl. Genet.72: 606–618.Google Scholar
  22. Hutchinson, J., 1964: The genera of flowering plants,1. — London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jansen, R. K., Holsinger, K. E., Michaels, H. J., Palmer, J. D., 1990: Phylogenetic analysis of chloroplast DNA restriction site data at higher taxonomic levels: an example from theAsteraceae. — Evolution44: 2089–2105.Google Scholar
  24. Lavin, M., Doyle, J. J., 1991: Tribal relationships ofSphinctospermum (Leguminosae); integration of traditional and chloroplast DNA data. — Syst. Bot.16: 162–172.Google Scholar
  25. , 1990: Evolutionary significance of the loss of the chloroplast DNA inverted repeat in theLeguminosae subfamilyPapilionoideae. — Evolution44: 390–402.Google Scholar
  26. Nei, M., 1987: Molecular evolutionary genetics. — New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Olmstead, R. G., Palmer, J. D., 1992: A chloroplast DNA phylogeny of theSolanaceae: subfamilial relationships and character evolution. — Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.79: 346–360.Google Scholar
  28. Palmer, J. D., Singh, G. P., Pillay, D. T. N., 1983: Structure and sequence evolution of three legume chloroplast DNAs. — Mol. Gen. Genet.190: 13–19.Google Scholar
  29. , 1985: Chloroplast DNA variation and evolution inPisum: patterns of change and phylogenetic analysis. — Genetics109: 195–213.Google Scholar
  30. , 1988: Evolutionary significance of inversions in legume chloroplast DNA. — Curr. Genet.14: 65–74.Google Scholar
  31. Plitman, U., 1981: Evolutionary history of Old World Lupines. — Taxon30: 430–437.Google Scholar
  32. , 1984: Cytogeographical distribution of Old WorldLupinus. — Webbia38: 531–539.Google Scholar
  33. Polhill, R. M., 1976:Genisteae (Adans.)Benth. and related tribes (Leguminosae). — Bot. Syst.1: 143–368.Google Scholar
  34. , 1981:Papilionoideae. — InPolhill, R. M., Raven, P. H., (Eds): Advances in Legume systematics1: pp. 191–208. — Kew: Royal Botanical Gardens.Google Scholar
  35. , 1981: Evolution and systematics of theLeguminosae. — InPolhill, R. M., Raven, P. H., (Eds): Advances in Legume systematics1: pp. 1–26. — Kew: Royal Botanical Gardens.Google Scholar
  36. Raynaud, C., 1975: Combinaisons nouvelles pour quatre espèces de la flore marocaine. — Bull. Soc. Bot. France121: 359–361.Google Scholar
  37. Rieseberg, L. H., Soltis, D. E., Palmer, J. D., 1988: A molecular reexamination of introgression betweenHelianthus annuus andH. bolanderi (Compositae). — Evolution43: 227–238.Google Scholar
  38. Rothmaler, W., 1944: Die Gliederung der GattungCytisus L. — Feddes Rep.53: 137–150.Google Scholar
  39. Saitou, N., Nei, M., 1987: The neighbor-joining method: a new method for the reconstruction of phylogenetic trees. — Mol. Biol. Evol.4: 406–425.Google Scholar
  40. Salatino, A., Gottlieb, O. R., 1983: Chemogeographical evolution of quinolizidines inPapilionoideae. — Pl. Syst. Evol.143: 167–174.Google Scholar
  41. Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E. F., Maniatis, T., 1989: Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 2nd edn. — Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.Google Scholar
  42. Sandbrink, J. M., Vellekoop, P., van Ham, R., van Brederode, J., 1989: A method for evolutionary studies on RFLP of chloroplast DNA applicable to a range of species. — Biochem. Syst. Ecol.17: 45–49.Google Scholar
  43. Sanderson, M. J., 1991: Phylogenetic relationships within North AmericanAstralagus L. — Syst. Bot.16: 414–430.Google Scholar
  44. Spooner, D. M., Anderson, G. J., Jansen, R. K., 1993: Chloroplast DNA evidence for the interrelationships of tomatoes, potatoes, and pepinos (Solanaceae). — Amer. J. Bot.80: 676–688.Google Scholar
  45. Swofford, D. L., 1991: PAUP: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.0. Computer program distributed by the Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
  46. Sytsma, K. J., Gottlieb, L. D., 1986a: Chloroplast DNA evidence for the derivation of the genusHeterogaura from a species ofClarkia (Onagraceae). — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA83: 5554–5557.Google Scholar
  47. , 1986b: Chloroplast DNA evolution and phylogenetic relationships inClarkia sect.Peripetasma (Onagraceae). — Evolution40: 1248–1261.Google Scholar
  48. Taubert, P., 1891:Leguminosae. — InEngler, A., Prantl, K., (Eds): Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien III, pp. 70–385. — Leipzig: Engelmann.Google Scholar
  49. Turner, B. L., 1981:Thermopsideae. — InPolhill, R. M., Raven, P. H., (Eds): Advances in Legume systematics1, pp. 403–407. — Kew: Royal Botanical Gardens.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdelfattah Badr
    • 1
  • William Martin
    • 2
  • Uwe Jensen
    • 3
  1. 1.Botany DepartmentFaculty of Science, Tanta UniversityTantaEgypt
  2. 2.Institut für GenetikTechnische Universität BraunschweigBraunschweigFederal Republic of Germany
  3. 3.Lehrstuhl für Pflanzenökologie und SystematikUniversität BayreuthBayreuthFederal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations