Genome size variation among and within Ophiopogoneae species by flow cytometric analysis
- 120 Downloads
Genome size variation in a taxonomic group reflects evolutionary processes. DNA contents of Ophiopogoneae (40 populations of 31 species) were estimated by flow cytometry. Ploidy levels of Ophiopogon (ten species), Liriope (two species), and Peliosanthes (three species) were determined based on the DNA contents. The genus Peliosanthes showed significant larger genome sizes than Ophiopogon (P < 0.01), and Ophiopogon also significant larger than Liriope (P < 0.05). Intraspecific variation in genome size was mainly chromosome difference. The ITS sequence phylogeny splitted Ophiopogon into two clades, clade I comprising sect. Ophiopogon with diploids and tetraploids, and clade II including transitional species and sects. Ophiopogon and Peliosanthoides with diploids. The trend seemed to increase in genome size from Ophiopogon sect. Peliosanthoides (13.45 pg) to Ophiopogon sect. Ophiopogon (14.27 pg). Polyploidization may be evolutionary direction of Ophiopogon. Our results also suggested that the ‘increase’ hypothesis for genome size evolutionary may hold true in the genus Ophiopogon.
KeywordsDNA content Genome size Ophiopogoneae Phylogeny Ploidy level
The authors thank Dr. Hu Guangwan for providing certain necessary materials. The study was supported by grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, Major State Basic Research Development Program (2010CB951700), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 40930209 to H. Sun), and the General Project of Natural Science Research in Anhui Province (AQKJ2015B018).
- Bennett MD (1973) Nuclear characters in plants. Brookhaven Symp Biol 25:344–366Google Scholar
- Hall TA (1999) BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser 41:95–98Google Scholar
- Lattier JD, Ranney TG, Fantz PR, Avent T (2014) Identification, nomenclature, genome sizes, and ploidy levels of Liriope and Ophiopogon Taxa. HortScience 49:145–151Google Scholar
- Leitch AR, Lim KY, Webband DR, Mcfadden GI (2001) In situ hybridisation. In: Hawesand C, Satait-Jeunemaitre B (eds) In plant cell biology, a practical approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 267–293Google Scholar
- Levin DA (2002) The role of chromosomal change in plant evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Suda J, Travnicek P (2006a) Estimation of relative nuclear DNA content in dehydrated plant tissues by flow cytometry. In: Robinson JP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Dobrucki J, Hyun W, Nolan J, Orfao A, Rabinovitch P (eds) Current protocols in cytometry. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Swofford DL (2003) PAUP*: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), version 4.0b10. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
- Wang FZ, Tang J (1978) Ophiopogon Ker-Gawl. Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sin, vol 15. Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
- Yang YP, Li H (1990) Study on the taxonomic system of Ophiopogon. Acta Bot Yunnan (Suppl III) 3:70–89Google Scholar
- Yang YP, Li H, Liu XZ, Katsuhiko K (1990) Karyotype study of the genus Ophiopogon in Yunnan. Acta Bot Yunnan (Suppl III) 3:94–102Google Scholar
- Zhang DM (1991) Chromosomal study and an insight into systematics of the tribe Ophiopogoneae (Endl.) Kunth. Dissertation, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of SciencesGoogle Scholar