Resolving Rapid Radiation of Voles and Lemmings (Arvicolinae: Cricetinae, Rodentia) with ddRAD Sequencing and Transcriptome Analysis: Genes vs Samples – The Number Matters
Le résumé fourni par la source
The voles and lemmings (subfamily Arvicolinae) remain one of the most difficult groups for disentangling phylogenetic relationships due to recent and very fast explosive radiation. The rapid radiations are challenging for phylogenetic analysis producing bushes of various forms impossible to resolve with a straightforward approach using individual loci. Here using quaddRADseq technique and comprehensive sample and transcriptomes on a limited sample we test whether the data from the nuclear genome are consistent with the trees inferred earlier in topology and divergence dating and evaluate the relative influence of sample number versus number of molecular markers. The study demonstrates that most plausible and reliable dated phylogeny of Arvicolinae at the supraspecies level is given by nuclear data. At the same time, the divergence dating is highly dependent on the number and position of calibration points at the tree and sample number. The most vulnerable for phylogenetic inference is the position of nodes with insufficient taxa sample. The challenge of rapid radiation in phylogeny reconstruction is easier to overcome when the number of recent taxa is not less than the number of extinctions. The robust resolution may be achieved only by accounting both the number of molecular markers and the sample size.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Resolving Rapid Radiation of Voles and Lemmings (Arvicolinae: Cricetinae, Rodentia) with ddRAD Sequencing and Transcriptome Analysis: Genes vs Samples – The Number Matters
- Date Crossref
- 06/12/2024
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.