Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation?

Abstract Background The taxonomic history of Ceratocystis, a genus in the Ceratocystidaceae, has been beset with questions and debate. This is due to many of the commonly used species recognition concepts (e.g., morphological and biological species concepts) providing different bases for interpretation of taxonomic boundaries. Species delineation in Ceratocystis primarily relied on genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR) using multiple standard molecular markers. Results Questions have arisen regarding the utility of these markers e.g., ITS, BT and TEF1-α due to evidence of intragenomic variation in the ITS, as well as genealogical incongruence, especially for isolates residing in a group referred to as the Latin-American clade (LAC) of the species. This study applied a phylogenomics approach to investigate the extent of phylogenetic incongruence in Ceratocystis. Phylogenomic analyses of a total of 1121 shared BUSCO genes revealed widespread incongruence within Ceratocystis, particularly within the LAC, which was typified by three equally represented topologies. Comparative analyses of the individual gene trees revealed evolutionary patterns indicative of hybridization. The maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree generated from the concatenated dataset comprised of 1069 shared BUSCO genes provided improved phylogenetic resolution suggesting the need for multiple gene markers in the phylogeny of Ceratocystis. Conclusion The incongruence observed among single gene phylogenies in this study call into question the utility of single or a few molecular markers for species delineation. Although this study provides evidence of interspecific hybridization, the role of hybridization as the source of discordance will require further research because the results could also be explained by high levels of shared ancestral polymorphism in this recently diverged lineage. This study also highlights the utility of BUSCO genes as a set of multiple orthologous genes for phylogenomic studies. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Aquillah M. Kanzi [verfasserIn] Conrad Trollip [verfasserIn] Michael J. Wingfield [verfasserIn] Irene Barnes [verfasserIn] Magriet A. Van der Nest [verfasserIn] Brenda D. Wingfield [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2020

Schlagwörter:	Ceratocystis Incongruence Hybridisation Phylogenomics

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: BMC Genomics - BMC, 2003, 21(2020), 1, Seite 11
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:21 ; year:2020 ; number:1 ; pages:11

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ043600360

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ043600360
003	DE-627
005	20230308073021.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ043600360
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJa07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a TP248.13-248.65
050		0	\|a QH426-470
100	0		\|a Aquillah M. Kanzi \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation?
264		1	\|c 2020
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Abstract Background The taxonomic history of Ceratocystis, a genus in the Ceratocystidaceae, has been beset with questions and debate. This is due to many of the commonly used species recognition concepts (e.g., morphological and biological species concepts) providing different bases for interpretation of taxonomic boundaries. Species delineation in Ceratocystis primarily relied on genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR) using multiple standard molecular markers. Results Questions have arisen regarding the utility of these markers e.g., ITS, BT and TEF1-α due to evidence of intragenomic variation in the ITS, as well as genealogical incongruence, especially for isolates residing in a group referred to as the Latin-American clade (LAC) of the species. This study applied a phylogenomics approach to investigate the extent of phylogenetic incongruence in Ceratocystis. Phylogenomic analyses of a total of 1121 shared BUSCO genes revealed widespread incongruence within Ceratocystis, particularly within the LAC, which was typified by three equally represented topologies. Comparative analyses of the individual gene trees revealed evolutionary patterns indicative of hybridization. The maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree generated from the concatenated dataset comprised of 1069 shared BUSCO genes provided improved phylogenetic resolution suggesting the need for multiple gene markers in the phylogeny of Ceratocystis. Conclusion The incongruence observed among single gene phylogenies in this study call into question the utility of single or a few molecular markers for species delineation. Although this study provides evidence of interspecific hybridization, the role of hybridization as the source of discordance will require further research because the results could also be explained by high levels of shared ancestral polymorphism in this recently diverged lineage. This study also highlights the utility of BUSCO genes as a set of multiple orthologous genes for phylogenomic studies.
650		4	\|a Ceratocystis
650		4	\|a Incongruence
650		4	\|a Hybridisation
650		4	\|a Phylogenomics
653		0	\|a Biotechnology
653		0	\|a Genetics
700	0		\|a Conrad Trollip \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Michael J. Wingfield \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Irene Barnes \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Magriet A. Van der Nest \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Brenda D. Wingfield \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t BMC Genomics \|d BMC, 2003 \|g 21(2020), 1, Seite 11 \|w (DE-627)326644954 \|w (DE-600)2041499-7 \|x 14712164 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:21 \|g year:2020 \|g number:1 \|g pages:11
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/a07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2001
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2008
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2010
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2015
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2020
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2021
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2031
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2038
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2044
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2048
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2050
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2056
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2057
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2061
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2113
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 21 \|j 2020 \|e 1 \|h 11

Indexfelder

author_variant	a m k amk c t ct m j w mjw i b ib m a v d n mavdn b d w bdw
matchkey_str	article:14712164:2020----::hlgnmcnoguneneaoyts
hierarchy_sort_str	2020
callnumber-subject-code	TP
publishDate	2020
allfields	10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 doi (DE-627)DOAJ043600360 (DE-599)DOAJa07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TP248.13-248.65 QH426-470 Aquillah M. Kanzi verfasserin aut Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation? 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background The taxonomic history of Ceratocystis, a genus in the Ceratocystidaceae, has been beset with questions and debate. This is due to many of the commonly used species recognition concepts (e.g., morphological and biological species concepts) providing different bases for interpretation of taxonomic boundaries. Species delineation in Ceratocystis primarily relied on genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR) using multiple standard molecular markers. Results Questions have arisen regarding the utility of these markers e.g., ITS, BT and TEF1-α due to evidence of intragenomic variation in the ITS, as well as genealogical incongruence, especially for isolates residing in a group referred to as the Latin-American clade (LAC) of the species. This study applied a phylogenomics approach to investigate the extent of phylogenetic incongruence in Ceratocystis. Phylogenomic analyses of a total of 1121 shared BUSCO genes revealed widespread incongruence within Ceratocystis, particularly within the LAC, which was typified by three equally represented topologies. Comparative analyses of the individual gene trees revealed evolutionary patterns indicative of hybridization. The maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree generated from the concatenated dataset comprised of 1069 shared BUSCO genes provided improved phylogenetic resolution suggesting the need for multiple gene markers in the phylogeny of Ceratocystis. Conclusion The incongruence observed among single gene phylogenies in this study call into question the utility of single or a few molecular markers for species delineation. Although this study provides evidence of interspecific hybridization, the role of hybridization as the source of discordance will require further research because the results could also be explained by high levels of shared ancestral polymorphism in this recently diverged lineage. This study also highlights the utility of BUSCO genes as a set of multiple orthologous genes for phylogenomic studies. Ceratocystis Incongruence Hybridisation Phylogenomics Biotechnology Genetics Conrad Trollip verfasserin aut Michael J. Wingfield verfasserin aut Irene Barnes verfasserin aut Magriet A. Van der Nest verfasserin aut Brenda D. Wingfield verfasserin aut In BMC Genomics BMC, 2003 21(2020), 1, Seite 11 (DE-627)326644954 (DE-600)2041499-7 14712164 nnns volume:21 year:2020 number:1 pages:11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 21 2020 1 11
spelling	10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 doi (DE-627)DOAJ043600360 (DE-599)DOAJa07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TP248.13-248.65 QH426-470 Aquillah M. Kanzi verfasserin aut Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation? 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background The taxonomic history of Ceratocystis, a genus in the Ceratocystidaceae, has been beset with questions and debate. This is due to many of the commonly used species recognition concepts (e.g., morphological and biological species concepts) providing different bases for interpretation of taxonomic boundaries. Species delineation in Ceratocystis primarily relied on genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR) using multiple standard molecular markers. Results Questions have arisen regarding the utility of these markers e.g., ITS, BT and TEF1-α due to evidence of intragenomic variation in the ITS, as well as genealogical incongruence, especially for isolates residing in a group referred to as the Latin-American clade (LAC) of the species. This study applied a phylogenomics approach to investigate the extent of phylogenetic incongruence in Ceratocystis. Phylogenomic analyses of a total of 1121 shared BUSCO genes revealed widespread incongruence within Ceratocystis, particularly within the LAC, which was typified by three equally represented topologies. Comparative analyses of the individual gene trees revealed evolutionary patterns indicative of hybridization. The maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree generated from the concatenated dataset comprised of 1069 shared BUSCO genes provided improved phylogenetic resolution suggesting the need for multiple gene markers in the phylogeny of Ceratocystis. Conclusion The incongruence observed among single gene phylogenies in this study call into question the utility of single or a few molecular markers for species delineation. Although this study provides evidence of interspecific hybridization, the role of hybridization as the source of discordance will require further research because the results could also be explained by high levels of shared ancestral polymorphism in this recently diverged lineage. This study also highlights the utility of BUSCO genes as a set of multiple orthologous genes for phylogenomic studies. Ceratocystis Incongruence Hybridisation Phylogenomics Biotechnology Genetics Conrad Trollip verfasserin aut Michael J. Wingfield verfasserin aut Irene Barnes verfasserin aut Magriet A. Van der Nest verfasserin aut Brenda D. Wingfield verfasserin aut In BMC Genomics BMC, 2003 21(2020), 1, Seite 11 (DE-627)326644954 (DE-600)2041499-7 14712164 nnns volume:21 year:2020 number:1 pages:11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 21 2020 1 11
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 doi (DE-627)DOAJ043600360 (DE-599)DOAJa07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TP248.13-248.65 QH426-470 Aquillah M. Kanzi verfasserin aut Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation? 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background The taxonomic history of Ceratocystis, a genus in the Ceratocystidaceae, has been beset with questions and debate. This is due to many of the commonly used species recognition concepts (e.g., morphological and biological species concepts) providing different bases for interpretation of taxonomic boundaries. Species delineation in Ceratocystis primarily relied on genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR) using multiple standard molecular markers. Results Questions have arisen regarding the utility of these markers e.g., ITS, BT and TEF1-α due to evidence of intragenomic variation in the ITS, as well as genealogical incongruence, especially for isolates residing in a group referred to as the Latin-American clade (LAC) of the species. This study applied a phylogenomics approach to investigate the extent of phylogenetic incongruence in Ceratocystis. Phylogenomic analyses of a total of 1121 shared BUSCO genes revealed widespread incongruence within Ceratocystis, particularly within the LAC, which was typified by three equally represented topologies. Comparative analyses of the individual gene trees revealed evolutionary patterns indicative of hybridization. The maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree generated from the concatenated dataset comprised of 1069 shared BUSCO genes provided improved phylogenetic resolution suggesting the need for multiple gene markers in the phylogeny of Ceratocystis. Conclusion The incongruence observed among single gene phylogenies in this study call into question the utility of single or a few molecular markers for species delineation. Although this study provides evidence of interspecific hybridization, the role of hybridization as the source of discordance will require further research because the results could also be explained by high levels of shared ancestral polymorphism in this recently diverged lineage. This study also highlights the utility of BUSCO genes as a set of multiple orthologous genes for phylogenomic studies. Ceratocystis Incongruence Hybridisation Phylogenomics Biotechnology Genetics Conrad Trollip verfasserin aut Michael J. Wingfield verfasserin aut Irene Barnes verfasserin aut Magriet A. Van der Nest verfasserin aut Brenda D. Wingfield verfasserin aut In BMC Genomics BMC, 2003 21(2020), 1, Seite 11 (DE-627)326644954 (DE-600)2041499-7 14712164 nnns volume:21 year:2020 number:1 pages:11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 21 2020 1 11
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 doi (DE-627)DOAJ043600360 (DE-599)DOAJa07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TP248.13-248.65 QH426-470 Aquillah M. Kanzi verfasserin aut Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation? 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background The taxonomic history of Ceratocystis, a genus in the Ceratocystidaceae, has been beset with questions and debate. This is due to many of the commonly used species recognition concepts (e.g., morphological and biological species concepts) providing different bases for interpretation of taxonomic boundaries. Species delineation in Ceratocystis primarily relied on genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR) using multiple standard molecular markers. Results Questions have arisen regarding the utility of these markers e.g., ITS, BT and TEF1-α due to evidence of intragenomic variation in the ITS, as well as genealogical incongruence, especially for isolates residing in a group referred to as the Latin-American clade (LAC) of the species. This study applied a phylogenomics approach to investigate the extent of phylogenetic incongruence in Ceratocystis. Phylogenomic analyses of a total of 1121 shared BUSCO genes revealed widespread incongruence within Ceratocystis, particularly within the LAC, which was typified by three equally represented topologies. Comparative analyses of the individual gene trees revealed evolutionary patterns indicative of hybridization. The maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree generated from the concatenated dataset comprised of 1069 shared BUSCO genes provided improved phylogenetic resolution suggesting the need for multiple gene markers in the phylogeny of Ceratocystis. Conclusion The incongruence observed among single gene phylogenies in this study call into question the utility of single or a few molecular markers for species delineation. Although this study provides evidence of interspecific hybridization, the role of hybridization as the source of discordance will require further research because the results could also be explained by high levels of shared ancestral polymorphism in this recently diverged lineage. This study also highlights the utility of BUSCO genes as a set of multiple orthologous genes for phylogenomic studies. Ceratocystis Incongruence Hybridisation Phylogenomics Biotechnology Genetics Conrad Trollip verfasserin aut Michael J. Wingfield verfasserin aut Irene Barnes verfasserin aut Magriet A. Van der Nest verfasserin aut Brenda D. Wingfield verfasserin aut In BMC Genomics BMC, 2003 21(2020), 1, Seite 11 (DE-627)326644954 (DE-600)2041499-7 14712164 nnns volume:21 year:2020 number:1 pages:11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 21 2020 1 11
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 doi (DE-627)DOAJ043600360 (DE-599)DOAJa07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TP248.13-248.65 QH426-470 Aquillah M. Kanzi verfasserin aut Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation? 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Background The taxonomic history of Ceratocystis, a genus in the Ceratocystidaceae, has been beset with questions and debate. This is due to many of the commonly used species recognition concepts (e.g., morphological and biological species concepts) providing different bases for interpretation of taxonomic boundaries. Species delineation in Ceratocystis primarily relied on genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR) using multiple standard molecular markers. Results Questions have arisen regarding the utility of these markers e.g., ITS, BT and TEF1-α due to evidence of intragenomic variation in the ITS, as well as genealogical incongruence, especially for isolates residing in a group referred to as the Latin-American clade (LAC) of the species. This study applied a phylogenomics approach to investigate the extent of phylogenetic incongruence in Ceratocystis. Phylogenomic analyses of a total of 1121 shared BUSCO genes revealed widespread incongruence within Ceratocystis, particularly within the LAC, which was typified by three equally represented topologies. Comparative analyses of the individual gene trees revealed evolutionary patterns indicative of hybridization. The maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree generated from the concatenated dataset comprised of 1069 shared BUSCO genes provided improved phylogenetic resolution suggesting the need for multiple gene markers in the phylogeny of Ceratocystis. Conclusion The incongruence observed among single gene phylogenies in this study call into question the utility of single or a few molecular markers for species delineation. Although this study provides evidence of interspecific hybridization, the role of hybridization as the source of discordance will require further research because the results could also be explained by high levels of shared ancestral polymorphism in this recently diverged lineage. This study also highlights the utility of BUSCO genes as a set of multiple orthologous genes for phylogenomic studies. Ceratocystis Incongruence Hybridisation Phylogenomics Biotechnology Genetics Conrad Trollip verfasserin aut Michael J. Wingfield verfasserin aut Irene Barnes verfasserin aut Magriet A. Van der Nest verfasserin aut Brenda D. Wingfield verfasserin aut In BMC Genomics BMC, 2003 21(2020), 1, Seite 11 (DE-627)326644954 (DE-600)2041499-7 14712164 nnns volume:21 year:2020 number:1 pages:11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/a07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054 kostenfrei http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 21 2020 1 11
language	English
source	In BMC Genomics 21(2020), 1, Seite 11 volume:21 year:2020 number:1 pages:11
sourceStr	In BMC Genomics 21(2020), 1, Seite 11 volume:21 year:2020 number:1 pages:11
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Ceratocystis Incongruence Hybridisation Phylogenomics Biotechnology Genetics
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC Genomics
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Aquillah M. Kanzi @@aut@@ Conrad Trollip @@aut@@ Michael J. Wingfield @@aut@@ Irene Barnes @@aut@@ Magriet A. Van der Nest @@aut@@ Brenda D. Wingfield @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	326644954
id	DOAJ043600360
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ043600360</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308073021.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ043600360</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJa07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TP248.13-248.65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH426-470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Aquillah M. Kanzi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background The taxonomic history of Ceratocystis, a genus in the Ceratocystidaceae, has been beset with questions and debate. This is due to many of the commonly used species recognition concepts (e.g., morphological and biological species concepts) providing different bases for interpretation of taxonomic boundaries. Species delineation in Ceratocystis primarily relied on genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR) using multiple standard molecular markers. Results Questions have arisen regarding the utility of these markers e.g., ITS, BT and TEF1-α due to evidence of intragenomic variation in the ITS, as well as genealogical incongruence, especially for isolates residing in a group referred to as the Latin-American clade (LAC) of the species. This study applied a phylogenomics approach to investigate the extent of phylogenetic incongruence in Ceratocystis. Phylogenomic analyses of a total of 1121 shared BUSCO genes revealed widespread incongruence within Ceratocystis, particularly within the LAC, which was typified by three equally represented topologies. Comparative analyses of the individual gene trees revealed evolutionary patterns indicative of hybridization. The maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree generated from the concatenated dataset comprised of 1069 shared BUSCO genes provided improved phylogenetic resolution suggesting the need for multiple gene markers in the phylogeny of Ceratocystis. Conclusion The incongruence observed among single gene phylogenies in this study call into question the utility of single or a few molecular markers for species delineation. Although this study provides evidence of interspecific hybridization, the role of hybridization as the source of discordance will require further research because the results could also be explained by high levels of shared ancestral polymorphism in this recently diverged lineage. This study also highlights the utility of BUSCO genes as a set of multiple orthologous genes for phylogenomic studies.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ceratocystis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Incongruence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Hybridisation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Phylogenomics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biotechnology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Genetics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Conrad Trollip</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Michael J. Wingfield</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Irene Barnes</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Magriet A. Van der Nest</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Brenda D. Wingfield</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC Genomics</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">21(2020), 1, Seite 11</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326644954</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041499-7</subfield><subfield code="x">14712164</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:21</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/a07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">21</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">11</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	T - Technology
author	Aquillah M. Kanzi
spellingShingle	Aquillah M. Kanzi misc TP248.13-248.65 misc QH426-470 misc Ceratocystis misc Incongruence misc Hybridisation misc Phylogenomics misc Biotechnology misc Genetics Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation?
authorStr	Aquillah M. Kanzi
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)326644954
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	TP248
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	14712164
topic_title	TP248.13-248.65 QH426-470 Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation? Ceratocystis Incongruence Hybridisation Phylogenomics
topic	misc TP248.13-248.65 misc QH426-470 misc Ceratocystis misc Incongruence misc Hybridisation misc Phylogenomics misc Biotechnology misc Genetics
topic_unstemmed	misc TP248.13-248.65 misc QH426-470 misc Ceratocystis misc Incongruence misc Hybridisation misc Phylogenomics misc Biotechnology misc Genetics
topic_browse	misc TP248.13-248.65 misc QH426-470 misc Ceratocystis misc Incongruence misc Hybridisation misc Phylogenomics misc Biotechnology misc Genetics
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC Genomics
hierarchy_parent_id	326644954
hierarchy_top_title	BMC Genomics
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)326644954 (DE-600)2041499-7
title	Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation?
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ043600360 (DE-599)DOAJa07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054
title_full	Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation?
author_sort	Aquillah M. Kanzi
journal	BMC Genomics
journalStr	BMC Genomics
callnumber-first-code	T
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2020
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	11
author_browse	Aquillah M. Kanzi Conrad Trollip Michael J. Wingfield Irene Barnes Magriet A. Van der Nest Brenda D. Wingfield
container_volume	21
class	TP248.13-248.65 QH426-470
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Aquillah M. Kanzi
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	phylogenomic incongruence in ceratocystis: a clue to speciation?
callnumber	TP248.13-248.65
title_auth	Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation?
abstract	Abstract Background The taxonomic history of Ceratocystis, a genus in the Ceratocystidaceae, has been beset with questions and debate. This is due to many of the commonly used species recognition concepts (e.g., morphological and biological species concepts) providing different bases for interpretation of taxonomic boundaries. Species delineation in Ceratocystis primarily relied on genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR) using multiple standard molecular markers. Results Questions have arisen regarding the utility of these markers e.g., ITS, BT and TEF1-α due to evidence of intragenomic variation in the ITS, as well as genealogical incongruence, especially for isolates residing in a group referred to as the Latin-American clade (LAC) of the species. This study applied a phylogenomics approach to investigate the extent of phylogenetic incongruence in Ceratocystis. Phylogenomic analyses of a total of 1121 shared BUSCO genes revealed widespread incongruence within Ceratocystis, particularly within the LAC, which was typified by three equally represented topologies. Comparative analyses of the individual gene trees revealed evolutionary patterns indicative of hybridization. The maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree generated from the concatenated dataset comprised of 1069 shared BUSCO genes provided improved phylogenetic resolution suggesting the need for multiple gene markers in the phylogeny of Ceratocystis. Conclusion The incongruence observed among single gene phylogenies in this study call into question the utility of single or a few molecular markers for species delineation. Although this study provides evidence of interspecific hybridization, the role of hybridization as the source of discordance will require further research because the results could also be explained by high levels of shared ancestral polymorphism in this recently diverged lineage. This study also highlights the utility of BUSCO genes as a set of multiple orthologous genes for phylogenomic studies.
abstractGer	Abstract Background The taxonomic history of Ceratocystis, a genus in the Ceratocystidaceae, has been beset with questions and debate. This is due to many of the commonly used species recognition concepts (e.g., morphological and biological species concepts) providing different bases for interpretation of taxonomic boundaries. Species delineation in Ceratocystis primarily relied on genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR) using multiple standard molecular markers. Results Questions have arisen regarding the utility of these markers e.g., ITS, BT and TEF1-α due to evidence of intragenomic variation in the ITS, as well as genealogical incongruence, especially for isolates residing in a group referred to as the Latin-American clade (LAC) of the species. This study applied a phylogenomics approach to investigate the extent of phylogenetic incongruence in Ceratocystis. Phylogenomic analyses of a total of 1121 shared BUSCO genes revealed widespread incongruence within Ceratocystis, particularly within the LAC, which was typified by three equally represented topologies. Comparative analyses of the individual gene trees revealed evolutionary patterns indicative of hybridization. The maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree generated from the concatenated dataset comprised of 1069 shared BUSCO genes provided improved phylogenetic resolution suggesting the need for multiple gene markers in the phylogeny of Ceratocystis. Conclusion The incongruence observed among single gene phylogenies in this study call into question the utility of single or a few molecular markers for species delineation. Although this study provides evidence of interspecific hybridization, the role of hybridization as the source of discordance will require further research because the results could also be explained by high levels of shared ancestral polymorphism in this recently diverged lineage. This study also highlights the utility of BUSCO genes as a set of multiple orthologous genes for phylogenomic studies.
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract Background The taxonomic history of Ceratocystis, a genus in the Ceratocystidaceae, has been beset with questions and debate. This is due to many of the commonly used species recognition concepts (e.g., morphological and biological species concepts) providing different bases for interpretation of taxonomic boundaries. Species delineation in Ceratocystis primarily relied on genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR) using multiple standard molecular markers. Results Questions have arisen regarding the utility of these markers e.g., ITS, BT and TEF1-α due to evidence of intragenomic variation in the ITS, as well as genealogical incongruence, especially for isolates residing in a group referred to as the Latin-American clade (LAC) of the species. This study applied a phylogenomics approach to investigate the extent of phylogenetic incongruence in Ceratocystis. Phylogenomic analyses of a total of 1121 shared BUSCO genes revealed widespread incongruence within Ceratocystis, particularly within the LAC, which was typified by three equally represented topologies. Comparative analyses of the individual gene trees revealed evolutionary patterns indicative of hybridization. The maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree generated from the concatenated dataset comprised of 1069 shared BUSCO genes provided improved phylogenetic resolution suggesting the need for multiple gene markers in the phylogeny of Ceratocystis. Conclusion The incongruence observed among single gene phylogenies in this study call into question the utility of single or a few molecular markers for species delineation. Although this study provides evidence of interspecific hybridization, the role of hybridization as the source of discordance will require further research because the results could also be explained by high levels of shared ancestral polymorphism in this recently diverged lineage. This study also highlights the utility of BUSCO genes as a set of multiple orthologous genes for phylogenomic studies.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2056 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation?
url	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 https://doaj.org/article/a07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0 https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164
remote_bool	true
author2	Conrad Trollip Michael J. Wingfield Irene Barnes Magriet A. Van der Nest Brenda D. Wingfield
author2Str	Conrad Trollip Michael J. Wingfield Irene Barnes Magriet A. Van der Nest Brenda D. Wingfield
ppnlink	326644954
callnumber-subject	TP - Chemical Technology
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0
callnumber-a	TP248.13-248.65
up_date	2024-07-03T18:26:49.913Z
_version_	1803583445965733889
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ043600360</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308073021.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ043600360</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJa07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TP248.13-248.65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH426-470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Aquillah M. Kanzi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Background The taxonomic history of Ceratocystis, a genus in the Ceratocystidaceae, has been beset with questions and debate. This is due to many of the commonly used species recognition concepts (e.g., morphological and biological species concepts) providing different bases for interpretation of taxonomic boundaries. Species delineation in Ceratocystis primarily relied on genealogical concordance phylogenetic species recognition (GCPSR) using multiple standard molecular markers. Results Questions have arisen regarding the utility of these markers e.g., ITS, BT and TEF1-α due to evidence of intragenomic variation in the ITS, as well as genealogical incongruence, especially for isolates residing in a group referred to as the Latin-American clade (LAC) of the species. This study applied a phylogenomics approach to investigate the extent of phylogenetic incongruence in Ceratocystis. Phylogenomic analyses of a total of 1121 shared BUSCO genes revealed widespread incongruence within Ceratocystis, particularly within the LAC, which was typified by three equally represented topologies. Comparative analyses of the individual gene trees revealed evolutionary patterns indicative of hybridization. The maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree generated from the concatenated dataset comprised of 1069 shared BUSCO genes provided improved phylogenetic resolution suggesting the need for multiple gene markers in the phylogeny of Ceratocystis. Conclusion The incongruence observed among single gene phylogenies in this study call into question the utility of single or a few molecular markers for species delineation. Although this study provides evidence of interspecific hybridization, the role of hybridization as the source of discordance will require further research because the results could also be explained by high levels of shared ancestral polymorphism in this recently diverged lineage. This study also highlights the utility of BUSCO genes as a set of multiple orthologous genes for phylogenomic studies.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ceratocystis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Incongruence</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Hybridisation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Phylogenomics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biotechnology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Genetics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Conrad Trollip</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Michael J. Wingfield</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Irene Barnes</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Magriet A. Van der Nest</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Brenda D. Wingfield</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC Genomics</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2003</subfield><subfield code="g">21(2020), 1, Seite 11</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326644954</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041499-7</subfield><subfield code="x">14712164</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:21</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/a07d7c95400a4081914fbac391aa0054</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-020-6772-0</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1471-2164</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2056</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">21</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">11</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.39999

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Phylogenomic incongruence in Ceratocystis: a clue to speciation?

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?