Next Article in Journal
Recovery of Logged Tropical Montane Rainforests as Potential Habitats for Hainan Gibbon
Next Article in Special Issue
Transcriptomic and Anatomic Profiling Reveal Etiolation Promotes Adventitious Rooting by Exogenous Application of 1-Naphthalene Acetic Acid in Robinia pseudoacacia L.
Previous Article in Journal
Climate Change Governance in Forestry and Nature Conservation in Selected Forest Regions in Serbia: Stakeholders Classification and Collaboration
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparative Transcriptome Analysis of Sophora japonica (L.) Roots Reveals Key Pathways and Genes in Response to PEG-Induced Drought Stress under Different Nitrogen Conditions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/f12060710
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison and Phylogenetic Analyses of Nine Complete Chloroplast Genomes of Zingibereae

by
Heng Liang
1,2 and
Juan Chen
1,*
1
Key Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation and Sustainable Utilization/Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Digital Botanical Garden, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510650, China
2
College of Life Science, Sichuan Agricultural University, Ya’an 625014, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2021, 12(6), 710; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060710
Submission received: 26 April 2021 / Revised: 25 May 2021 / Accepted: 27 May 2021 / Published: 30 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forest Genomics and Transcriptomics)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Zingibereae is a large tribe in the family Zingiberaceae, which contains plants with important medicinal, edible, and ornamental values. Although tribes of Zingiberaceae are well circumscribed, the circumscription of many genera within Zingibereae and the relationships among them remain elusive, especially for the genera of Boesenbergia, Curcuma, Kaempferia and Pyrgophyllum. In this study, we investigated the plastome variation in nine species representing five genera of Zingibereae. All plastomes showed a typical quadripartite structure with lengths ranging from 162,042 bp to 163,539 bp and contained 132–134 genes, consisting of 86–88 coding genes, 38 transfer RNA genes and eight ribosomal RNA genes. Moreover, the characteristics of the long repeats sequences and simple sequence repeats (SSRs) were detected. In addition, we conducted phylogenomic analyses of the Zingibereae and related taxa with plastomes data from additional 32 species from Genbank. Our results confirmed that Stahlianthus is closely related to Curcuma, supporting the idea of merging it into Curcuma. Kaempferia, Boesenbergia and Zingiber were confirmed as close relatives and grouped together as the Kaempferia group. Pyrgophyllum is not allied with the Curcuma clade but instead is embedded within the Hedychium clade. Our results demonstrate the power of plastid phylogenomics in improving the phylogenetic relationships within Zingibereae and provide a new insight into plastome evolution in Zingibereceae.

1. Introduction

Zingiberaceae, commonly known as the ginger family, is the largest family of the order Zingiberales. It comprises over 50 genera and consists of more than 1300 species [1], widely distributed throughout tropical Africa, Asia, and the Americas, with species abundant in South and Southeast Asia [2]. Many species of the ginger family are important ornamental, spice, or medicinal plants [3,4,5]. The first comprehensive phylogenetic analysis based on nuclear ITS region and plastid matK region confirmed the long-suspected complexity of generic concepts in Zingiberaceae and divided the Zingiberaceae family into six tribes and four subfamilies: Zingiberoideae (Zingibereae and Globbeae), Tamijioideae (Tamijieae), Siphonochiloideae (Siphonochileae) and Alpinioideae (Alpinieae and Riedelieae).
The tribe Zingibereae is a large subclade within the family Zingiberaceae and includes ca. 670 species in some 25 genera (Plants of the World Online: http://plantsoftheworldonline.org, IPNI: https://www.ipni.org, accessed on 21 January 2021) [1,6]. Members of Zingibereae are mainly distributed throughout tropical and warm-temperate Asia, with a few species extending to Pacific islands and Australia [1] (Plants of the World Online: http://plantsoftheworldonline.org, accessed on 15 January 2021). Members of Zingibereae are easily distinguished from other gingers by the plane of leaf distichy parallel to the direction of rhizome growth, large and petaloid lateral staminodes, trilocular ovary with axial, basal or free columnar placentation, and labellum usually not connate to the filament [1].
Although tribes of Zingiberaceae are well circumscribed [1], attaining high resolution of the phylogenetic relationships within Zingibereae is still problematic [1,6]. For example, the delimitation of the genus Curcuma has been a matter of dispute since its establishment by Linnaeus [7]. Several small or monotypic genera closely related to Curcuma, e.g., Hitchenia Wall., Laosanthus K.Larsen & Jenjitt., Paracautleya R.M.Sm., Smithatris W.J.Kress & K.Larsen and Stahlianthus Kuntze, were recognized based on morphology in the past [1,2,6]. Recently, the study based on the nuclear ITS region and three plastid regions (trnL-F, psbA-trnH, matK) supported a broad generic boundary for Curcuma, with the inclusion of Laosanthus, Paracautleya, Stahlianthus, Smithatris and some species of Kaempferia L. and Hitchenia [8]; thus, they were all transferred to Curcuma later [9]. However, no character has been found that is both exclusive to Curcuma s.l. and present in all of Curcuma species. Pyrgophyllum (Gagnep.) T.L.Wu & Z.Y.Chen was firstly considered as a subgenus of Kaempferia [10], then was transferred to be a section of Camptandra Ridl. [11], later to be a section of Caoulokaempferia K.Larsen [12]. It was recognized as a separate genus closely related to Camptandra [13], whereas its phylogenetic position is unclear in later studies [6,14,15]. Many species of Kaempferia were transferred to Boesenbergia Kuntze and Curcuma recently [9,16,17]. Boesenbergia was demonstrated to be polyphyletic [1], while the phylogenetic trees based on petA-psbJ spacer recognized the monophyly of Boesenbergia [18]. This taxonomic complex is yet another example of the problems that exist in defining clear generic boundaries in Zingibereae.
Chloroplast as an essential organelle is directly and indirectly involved in various metabolic pathways and plays an essential role [19]. Since the first chloroplast genome of tobacco was sequenced and published in 1986 [20], the number of complete chloroplast genomes sequences has increased significantly. Chloroplast genomes vary in length from 120–220 kb and have a quadripartite structure consisting of a large single-copy region (LSC), a small single-copy region (SSC) and a couple of reverse complementary inverted repeats (IRs) which separates the regions of LSC and SSC [21]. Variation in the genome size is due to the loss, contraction and expansion of the IRs region [22,23,24], such as in some leguminous plants and algae that have completely lost the IRs region [25,26]. The chloroplast genomes are relatively small, highly conserved and have slow mutation rates and are useful in resolving phylogenetic issues brought about by historical diversity, rapid radiation and frequent hybridization [27,28]. Therefore, the chloroplast genome is believed to be a perfect model for phylogenetic and phylogeographic studies [29]. However, only a few chloroplast genomes of Zingibereae species have been published until now.
In order to gain new insights into the evolution of plastomes, and to improve the delineation of the phylogenetic affinities among genera within Zingibereae, we sequenced nine complete chloroplast genomes and compared the previously reported chloroplast genomes of 21 Zingibereae species, nine other Zingiberaceae species and two species from closely related families. Our specific goals are to (1) investigate the genome structure, gene order, and gene content of the whole chloroplast genome of nine Zingibereae species; (2) test whether chloroplast genome data yielded sufficient variation to construct a well-supported phylogeny of Zingibereae, particularly the phylogenetic relationships of Boesenbergia, Curcuma, Kaempferia and Pyrgophyllum.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Materials and DNA Sequencing

Nine taxa of five genera belonging to Zingibereae (Boesenbergia kingii Mood & L.M.Prince, Curcuma aff. plicata, C. aff. singularis, C. kwangsiensis S.K.Lee & C.F.Liang, C. ruiliensis N.H.Xia & Juan Chen, C. wenyujin Y.H.Chen & C.Ling, Kaempferia rotunda L., Pyrgophyllum yunnanense (Gagnep.) T.L.Wu & Z.Y.Chen and Stahlianthus involucratus (King ex Baker) Craib) were sequenced and analyzed. Voucher specimens are deposited at IBSC (Table 1).
The fresh leaves were obtained from the nursery of the South China Botanical Garden in Guangzhou, China. The total genomic DNA was extracted by a modified CTAB protocol [30]. The libraries were sequenced on Illumina HiSeq Xten platform (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) at Sangon Biotech Co. Ltd. (Shanghai, China).

2.2. The Genomes of Plastome Assembly, Annotation and Structure

The raw reads of nine Zingibereae species were trimmed and filtered by NGSQC Toolkit version 2.3.3 [31]. The reads were de novo assembled using SPAdes v3.6.0 (54) and finished using PRICE (Paired-Read Iterative Contig Extension) [32]. The BWA was used to check the de novo assembly in default parameter and the reads were aligned against the assembled genome [33]. The automatic annotator software Unix Program Plann was used to annotate the genome [34]. The annotated genome was matched with open reading frames (ORFs), then the remaining lacking protein evidence ORFs were disregarded [35]. The genes were considered potential pseudogenes which contained one or more frame shift mutations or premature stop codons. In addition, the DRAW tool was used to generate and edited the circular map of the chloroplast genomes [36].

2.3. The Analysis of Codon Usage

The relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) is used to represent the ratio of the specific and the expected codon frequency. RSCU > 1.00 indicates that a codon is used more frequently than expected, and vice versa. DAMBE5 is used to calculate the RSCU [37].

2.4. Complete Chloroplast Genome Comparison and Molecular Marker Identification

We used the mVISTA with the annotated sequence of Curcuma kwangsiensis as a reference to compare similarities and detect any rearrangement or inversion among nine newly sequenced Zingibereae species which make pairwise alignments in the LAGAN model [38]. The rates of nonsynonymous (Ka) and synonymous substitutions (Ks) were calculated in DnaSP 6.0 based on 80 protein coding regions [39]. In DnaSP 6.0, the sequence polymorphism and nucleotide diversity (Pi) values were evaluated.

2.5. The Analysis of Long Repetitive Sequences and Simple Sequence Repeats (SSRs)

The long repeats (forward, reverse, palindromic and complementary) among the complete chloroplast genome of nine newly sequenced Zingibereae species based on the size and location of the long repeats in REPuter were calculated [40]. The detection parameter settings were a minimum repeat size of 30 bp, and the Hamming distance of 3. MISA software (http://pgrc.ipk-gatersleben.de/misa/, accessed on 24 January 2021) was used to detect SSRs. The parameters were set as follows: ≥ten for mono-; ≥five for di-; ≥four for tri-, ≥three for tetra-, ≥three for penta- and ≥three for hexa-. The interruptions (max difference between 2 SSRs) less than 9 bp were termed “complex”.

2.6. Phylogenetic Analysis

In this study, 30 accessions of eight genera (one Boesenbergia species, one Cautleya (Royle ex Benth.) Hook.f. species, 14 Curcuma species, two Hedychium J.Koenig. species, three Kaempferia species, one Pyrgophyllum species, three Roscoea Sm. species, two Stahlianthus species, three Zingiber Mill. species) belonging to Zingibereae were analyzed. Nine outgroup species included four Alpinia Roxb. species, two Amomum Roxb. species, one Lanxangia M.F.Newman & Škorničk. species and two Wurfbainia Giseke species. Another two species from the closely related family (Costus viridis S.Q. Tong and Musella lasiocarpa (Franch.) C.Y. Wu) were used to root the trees. Except for nine newly sequenced species, the remaining 32 published chloroplast genomes were downloaded from NCBI. A list of GenBank accessions is provided in Supplementary Table S1.
In order to make a more reasonable utilization of the relationships based on phylogenetic trees, we used a complete chloroplast genome, CDS, LSC and intron sequences for phylogenetic analysis. The software MAFFT version 7.0 was used to align the multiple sequences before inferring the phylogenetic trees [41]. Maximum likelihood (ML) methods in the program PAUP * Version 4.0 were used to construct the phylogenetic trees [42].

3. Results

3.1. The Genome Structure and Content of Nine Zingibereae Species

Chloroplast genomes of nine Zingibereae species (six newly reported) were sequenced and assembled with lengths ranging from 162,042 bp (Pyrgophyllum yunnanense) to 163,539 bp (Curcuma aff. singularis) (Table 2). All cp genomes had a typical quadripartite circular structure with a pair of IR regions that separated the LSC and SSC regions, and the gene map of the B. kingii chloroplast genomes was presented in Figure 1 as representative. The LSC region ranged from 86,943 bp (C. aff. plicata) to 88,251 bp (C. aff. singularis), accounting for 33.78%–34.11% of the total length. The SSC region ranged from 15,568 bp (Stahlianthus involucratus to 16,023 bp (P. yunnanense), accounting for 29.14%–29.66% of the total length. The IR regions ranged from 29,379 bp (P. yunnanense) to 30,117 bp (S. involucratus), accounting for 40.89%–41.30% of the total length.
The complete cp genomes of nine Zingibereae species contain 132–134 genes (113 unique genes), including 86–88 coding genes, 38 transfer RNA genes (tRNA) and eight ribosomal RNA genes (rRNA) (Table 1 and Table S2). Among the 113 unique genes, 18 intron-containing genes were detected, including 14 genes (atpF, clpP, ndhA, petB, petD, rpl16, rpoC1, rps12, rps16, trnG-GCC, trnK-UUU, trnL-UAA, trnV-UAC and ycf3) in LSC regions and four genes (ndhB, rpl2, trnA-UGC and trnI-GAU) in IR regions, and only one gene (ndhA) in SSC region (Table S3). Among these 18 genes, only two genes (ycf3 and clpP) contained two introns while the other 16 genes contained one intron, including nine coding genes (rps16, rpoC1, rpl2, rpl16, petD, petB, ndhB, ndhA and atpF) and six tRNA (trnV-UAC, trnL-UAA, trnK-UUU, trnI-GAU, trnG-GCC and trnA-UGC). The rps12 gene was a special trans-spliced gene with two duplicated 3′ end exons in IR regions and 5′ end exon in LSC region.

3.2. Condon Usage Bias

A total of 67 coding genes were used to estimate the codon usage frequency based on the relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) value (Table S4). All genes were encoded by 27,705 (P. yunnanense) to 27,904 (S. involucratus) codons. UAA, UGA and UAG were considered to be the termination codons. For nine Zingibereae species, the serine encoded by AGC had the lowest RSCU value (0.31), while methionine encoded by AUG had the highest one (2.65). The AUU, AAA and GAA encoded isoleucine, lysine and glutamic acid, respectively, had higher frequencies of occurrence than others (more than 1100). In addition, A or T had a higher nucleotide frequency than G or C in the third codon position, which was relatively common in most angiosperm, and the richness of A or T in the IR regions was the principal reason [43] (Figure 2 and Table S4).

3.3. Comparative Genomic Analysis

A high degree of synteny and gene order conservation indicated a high evolutionary conservatism at plastome level (Figure 3). It is clear that the Curcuma species can be separated from the other Zingibereae species by many genes, such as atpF, rpl16 and atpH-atpI. However, the divergence among five Curcuma species was very low. Notably, the regions of LSC and SSC had more variation than the regions of IRs, and the non-coding regions had a greater differentiation than that of coding regions. Some regions had more variation, such as matK, rps16, atpF, ndhH, clpP among the coding regions, ycf1 intron, and atpH-atpI, petN-psbM, trnA-psbD and rpl32-trnL in the intergenic regions.
A non-synonymous/synonymous mutation (Ka/Ks) ratio was used to assess the significant differences in evolutionary rates (Figure 4 and Table S5). The Ka/Ks ratio of most genes was less than 0.5 (91.25%). The Ka/Ks ratio of three genes were higher than 1, viz. ccsA, ycf1 and ycf4, and they may be under positive selection. Most of the genes associated with photosynthesis had the lowest rates of evolution. In addition, the Ka/Ks ratio of 42 genes were 0, including Ka = 0 (atpA, atpI, infA, lhbA, ndhC, ndhJ, ndhK, psaA, psaB, psbB, psbK, psbM, psbT, rps18, rps19 and ycf3), Ks = 0 (psbH, rpl16, rpl32, rps12, rps14, rps15 and rps16). The Ka/Ks of atpH, petG, petL, petN, psaC, psaI, psaJ, psbE, psbF, psbI, psbJ, psbL, psbN, psbZ, rpl2, rpl23, rpl33, rpl36 and rps7 were 0, and therefore it indicated that there was no nonsynonymous and synonymous substitution.

3.4. Expansion and Contraction of Inverted Repeats (IRs)

Among nine Zingibereae species, the sizes of the IR regions varied from 29,379 bp (P. yunnanense) to 30,117 bp (S. involucratus). The rpl22 genes were located on the boundaries of LSC regions, and the distance between rpl22 and the boundary of LSC/IRb ranged from 23 bp (C. aff. singularis) to 538 bp (P. yunnanense). The rps19 coding gene was located in the IRb region but that gene of P. yunnanense was located in the LSC region. The distance between rps19 and the boundary of LSC-IRb ranged from 3 bp (P. yunnanense) to 167 bp (S. involucratus). The IRb/SSC and SSC/IRa boundary was crossed by the ycf1 gene, which was a critical gene. In the IRb/SSC boundary, the ycf1 gene located in the SSC region was from 4 bp (S. involucratus) to 43 bp (C. ruiliensis). At the SSC/IRa boundary, the ycf1 gene located in the SSC region was from 1210 bp (S. involucratus) to 1592 bp (P. yunnanense). For S. involucratus, the ndhF gene spanned the IRb region and the SSC region. However, in the other eight Zingibereae species, the ndhF gene was located in the SSC region. At the SSC/IRa boundary, the rps15 gene located in the SSC region was from 1657 bp (S. involucratus) to 2037 bp (P. yunnanense). The psbA gene was located on the right side of IRa/LSC regions with the distance of 103 bp (C. aff. singularis)–260 bp (K. rotunda L.) (Figure 5).

3.5. Repeat Structure and SSR Analysis

There were a total of 836 long repeats among nine Zingibereae species, including forward repeats, palindromic repeats, reverse repeats and complement repeats (Figure 6 and Table S6). Curcuma aff. plicata had the largest number of repeats, including 39 forward, 45 palindromic, 40 reverse and 20 complement repeats, while Boesenbergia kingii had the least number of repeats, including 23 forward, 28 palindromic, ten reverse and three complement repeats. Curcuma aff. singularis had the least number of complement repeats (having only one). In all, the repeats mostly ranged from 30 to 137 bp. The majority of these repeats showed lengths of 30, 31 and 33 bp.
Simple sequence repeat (SSR), also known as tandem repeats or microsatellites, consists of DNA repeat with sizes of 1–6 bp and can be used as important molecular markers for species identifications [44,45,46]. There were seven kinds of SSRs in nine Zingibereae species: mononucleotide, dinucleotide, trinucleotide, tetranucleotide, pentanucleotide, hexanucleotide and complex. There were 95–118 SSRs in each species (Figure 7a). Among each species, mononucleotide repeats were the most common one, with numbers ranging from 45–57; followed by dinucleotide ranging from 25–36; tetranucleotide SSRs ranging from 13–23; trinucleotide SSRs ranging from 3–10; complex SSRs ranging from 3–10; pentanucleotide SSRs ranging from 1–2; hexanucleotide SSRs ranging from 0–1 (only found in P. yunnanense).
Among nine Zingibereae species, the results showed that the mononucleotide A/T repeats accounted for 43.95% and 54.44%, respectively (Table S7). The mononucleotide C/G repeats accounted for 1.06% and 0.55%, respectively. The number of mononucleotide A/T repeats in C. aff. singularis was 23/34, which was the highest, while Kaempferia rotunda had the lowest (17/26).
The number of SSRs located in the LSC regions was much more than that in the SSC and IR regions (Figure 7b). Moreover, the SSRs were more dispersed in the noncoding gene regions (50–63) than in the coding genes (49–57) and in tRNA (1–4) but none in rRNA (Figure 7c). The SSR loci were located in the 13 coding genes (matK, trnK-UUU, atpF, rpoC2, rps14, psbF, rps18, rps12, ycf2, rps16, trnG-GCC, atpF, and ycf3) and 62 intergenic regions of the nine Zingibereae species (Table S6).

3.6. Sequence Divergence Hotspots

In the chloroplast genomes, the divergence hotspots can provide useful information and are often applied to assess geographic distribution and phylogeny [28,47,48,49]. Our results indicated that the Pi values in the coding regions were lower than those in the intergenic regions (Table S8). For the coding regions, the values of the LSC regions ranged from 0.0010–0.0933, followed by the values of the SSC regions ranging from 0.000–0.0753 and the values of the IR regions ranging from 0.0000–0.0175. Three high divergence hotspots, viz. rps2, rpoC2 and rps15, were selected as potential molecular markers to identify related species (Figure 8).

3.7. Phylogenetic Analysis Based on Chloroplast Genomes

In this study, we utilized 41 complete cp genomes, including nine newly sequenced genomes and 20 previously reported chloroplast genomes of Zingibereae species, nine other Zingiberaceae species and two species from closely related families to infer phylogenetic relationships. The phylogenetic trees were constructed based on a complete cp genome, the coding regions (CDS), LSC region and intron data. The phylogenetic trees using four different datasets had different topologies, but all recognized the monophyly of the Zingibereae (Figure 9, Figures S1–S3). ML phylogeny inferred from CDS was the best resolved, thus is displayed here and discussed below (Figure 9). Two clades are recognized, namely the Curcuma clade and the Hedychium clade (Figure 9). Only the Curcuma clade is strongly supported (Figure 9). Resolution within the Curcuma clade is rather high. Three groups, ‘Ecomatae’, ‘Hitcheniopsis’ and ‘Curcuma’, are strongly supported, although the Ecomatae group was only represented by one species here, namely Curcuma aff. singularis. The Hitcheniopsis group, represented by C. alismatifolia and Stahlianthus involucratus, was resolved in a sister position to the Ecomatae group. The Curcuma group was represented by the remaining species. Relationships within the Curcuma group were not satisfactorily resolved.
Within the Hedychium clade, Hedychium, Kaempferia, Roscoea and Zingiber are supported to be monophyletic with a high support value (bootstrap value = 100%) (Figure 9). Kaempferia, Zingiber and Boesenbergia formed a group separate from the rest with strong support (bootstrap value = 100%), while the relationships among the remaining genera are unresolved. Pyrgophyllum is nested within the Hedychium clade. Similar results were also found in Figures S1–S3.

4. Discussion

All nine complete cp genomes of Zingibereae species had a typical four-segment structure, including 84–88 coding genes, 38 tRNAs and 8 rRNAs. The genome size of nine Zingibereae species ranged from 162,042 to 163,539 bp with GC content ranging from 36.00% to 36.25%. The size range of these sequenced cp genomes are similar to the sizes of the earlier reported cp genomes of Zingibereae species [24,50,51,52]. The IRs of earlier reported species were found to be different in length between 28,950 bp and 30,150 bp but the IRs of the nine species reported here varied from 29,379 bp to 30,117 bp. Thus, the expansion and contraction of the size in IR region was the main reason for the genome sizes variation among the Zingibereae species. Additionally, IR expansion or contraction is generally accompanied with the change of gene location. For example, the rps19 gene as a pseudogene frequently spanned the LSC-IR and SSC-IR boundaries in some angiosperms [29,53]. However, in Zingibereae species, rps19 coding gene was located in the IRb regions, while it was located in the LSC region in P. yunnanense. In nine Zingibereae species, the rps19 gene was fully duplicated in accordance with the results reported in other Zingiberaceae species [24,51,52,54]. Pseudogene ψycf1 was also related to the contraction and expansion of the IR region. ψycf1 was present in Zingibereae species, which was truncated at the IR/SSC boundary. In previous studies, ycf1 has been used in the phylogeny of some taxa [55,56], while our results showed ψycf1 had no phylogenetic significance in Zingibereae species. Differences in the location of genes between species provide useful information on evolutionary relationships in genetic research. In this study, it was clear that the organization, genome size and structure of the nine chloroplast genomes were highly conserved. The largest variation of Zingibereae cp genomes was the intergenic areas, which was similar to other chloroplast genomes [19].
Meanwhile, the low ratios of Ka/Ks and evolutionary rate were assessed among nine Zingibereae species. Most of the genes (Ka/Ks = 0) with the lowest evolutionary rates were photosynthetic genes, e.g., ndhC, ndhJ, ndhK, petG, petL, psaC, psaI, psbE and psbF. The ycf1, ycf4 and ccsA genes evolved more quickly and had higher Ka/Ks (≥1). The evolutionary rate of clpP was species-specific [57], while the clpP gene among nine Zingibereae species experienced negative selection and the ratio of Ka/Ks was 0.3326, which was far less than that of many taxa [58,59,60]. One previous study showed that the gene had gone through spells of relatively accelerated sequence evolution, and thus led to the intron loss in some plants [57]. In this study, the clpP gene contained two introns in nine Zingibereae species, which might be the reason for the low ratio of Ka/Ks. Zingibereae species mostly grow in disturbed habitats, and the environmental conditions of their habitats vary from tropical rainforest (wet–hot) to Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (cold–drought). This promotes gene exchange among colonies of the population in inferior and unfavorable habitats. Genes under positive selection often bring on many repeating amino acid sequence insertions in varying degrees and that may be involve in a recent increase in diversification rate after adapting to a new ecological environment [61]. To understand the ratios of Ka/Ks and the evolutionary rate of genes would provide us valuable information on how Zingibereae species adapt to their environment.
The SSRs are typically mononucleotide tandem repeat DNA sequences that are widely used for species identification and genetic diversity research [62,63]. The SSRs mainly consist of short polyadenine or polythymine repeats and ranged from 95 to 118 among nine Zingibereae species, which were in agreement with previous studies [24,51,52,54]. Due to a lack of genome resources in Zingibereae, the SSRs can be used for species identification and genetic diversity research on Zingibereae species and their relatives.
Chloroplast genome sequences have been valuable in molecular, evolutionary, and phylogenetic studies. Numerous analyses on the basis of cp genome sequence comparison have resolved various phylogenetic problems and improved our understanding of complex evolutionary associations among angiosperms [27,64,65]. Our phylogenomic analyses based on cp genome sequences also revealed that the phylogenetic resolution within Zingibereae has been greatly improved (with high support and the similar topology among different analyses) in comparison to the most comprehensive previous phylogenetic studies of the Zingibereae based on the nuclear ribosomal ITS region and the plastid matK and trnL-F regions [1,6]. Our results strongly supported that Zingibereae was separated from Alpinieae, which agreed with the past study [1]. Based on matK and ITS combined, a Kaempferia clade, including Boesenbergia, Kaempferia, Zingiber is weakly supported [1], but we obtain strong support from cp genome sequences, and which is similar to the conclusion made in other studies by DNA barcodes [66,67]. Based on the combination of trnL-F region and ITS, the tribe is divided into two major clades, the Curcuma clade and the Hedychium clade. Nonetheless, these two studies showed that the relationships within these clades remained uncertain because statistical support was weak. Our phylogenetic trees demonstrated that these two major clades were identified in the Zingibereae; namely, the Curcuma clade in the sense of Kress et al. (2002) [1] with strong support and the Hedychium clade in the sense of Ngamriabsakul et al. (2004) [6] with weak support.
Within the Curcuma clade, Stahlianthus is closely related to Curcuma at the molecular level, supporting the idea of merging it into Curcuma [9]. Our results confirmed the monophyly of Curcuma and the infrageneric classification proposed by Záveská et al. (2012) in which C. subg. Curcuma and C. subg. Hitcheniopsis (Baker) K.Schum. were retained and a new subgenus, C. subg. Ecomatae Škorničk. & Šída f. was proposed [8]. The representatives of the Hitcheniopsis group resolved here correspond to Curcuma subg. Hitcheniopsis [11]. The Curcuma group includes species traditionally classified in subgenus Curcuma. In accordance with previous studies [1,8], Curcuma subg. Ecomatae represented by C. aff. singularis here is more closely related to C. subg. Hitcheniopsis than C. subg. Curcuma based on the cpDNA data. However, relationships of species within these clades are complex because polyploidization and hybridization were important for the speciation of Curcuma species. More detailed analyses of species relationships within Curcuma will be the subject of further studies.
Within the Hedychium clade, a Kaempferia group in the sense of Kress et al. (2002) [1] consisting of Boesenbergia, Kaempferia and Zingiber was also identified with strong support (bootstrap value = 100%), whereas the relationships of the remaining members were unresolved. According to the complete cp genome, the coding regions (CDS), LSC region and intron data, Kaempferia is supported to be monophyletic and is sister to Zingiber. Since only one species, B. kingii, belonging to Boesenbergis was sampled, the relationship within Boesenbergia was unable to be further investigated.
In the previous phylogeny study [15], Pyrgophyllum yunnanense was very closely related to the genus Curcuma. However, P. yunnanense is not allied with the Curcuma clade but instead is embedded within the Hedychium clade. Despite these findings, the systematic relationships of P. yunnanense remain uncertain. The natural hybridization and polyploidization were the main cause of inconsistency in Zingibereae. Considering the Zingibereae hybrid origin, the features of maternal inheritance in the chloroplast genome could provide more evidence to clarify their phylogenetic relationships. Further sampling of Zingibereae species may prove their relationships.

5. Conclusions

In this study, complete chloroplast genomes of nine Zingibereae species including Boesenbergia kingii, Curcuma aff. plicata, C. aff. singularis, C. ruiliensis, Kaempferia rotunda, and Pyrgophyllum yunnanense were firstly published. The chloroplast genomes of nine Zingibereae species were similar in structure, composition and gene order, showing that the chloroplast genomes studied here are highly conserved. Moreover, we also identified the SSR sites and three divergence hotspots (rps2, rpoC2 and rps15), which could provide powerful markers for phylogenetic and identification analyses within Zingibereae.
Our results shed a new light on the phylogenetic relationships within Zingibereae and demonstrated the continuing power of plastome sequencing to improve phylogenetic resolution among the complicated taxa of Zingiberaceae. The phylogenomic analysis strongly supported the idea that Zingibereae is monophyletic and can be divided into two clades, namely the Curcuma clade and the Hedychium clade. The monophyly of the genus Curcuma and three subgenera in Curcuma are confirmed with high support. Our results also showed that Hedychium, Kaempferia, Roscoea and Zingiber are strongly supported to be monophyletic. Pyrgophyllum yunnanense is not allied with the Curcuma clade but instead is embedded within the Hedychium clade. However, the systematic relationships of Pyrgophyllum and Boesenbergia remain unresolved. Further work based on broader sampling within Zingibereae is needed.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/f12060710/s1, Figure S1: Phylogenetic tree constructed using the complete chloroplast genome data. Figure S2: Phylogenetic tree constructed using intron data. Figure S3: Phylogenetic tree constructed using LSC data. Table S1. The GenBank accession numbers of 32 species using in phylogenetic analysis. Table S2. Genes contained in nine sequenced Zingibereae chloroplast genome. Table S3. The genes with introns in the nine Zingibereae chloroplast genomes. Table S4. Codon usage and codon–anticodon recognition pattern of nine Zingiberaeace species. Table S5. The mean Ka/Ks of 77 genes among nine Zingibereae species. Table S6. The comparison of long repeats among nine Zingibereae species. Table S7. The comparison of SSRs among nine Zingibereae species. Table S8. The nucleotide variability (Pi) value of nine Zingibereae species.

Author Contributions

H.L. and J.C. designed the experiment and wrote the manuscript. H.L. analyzed the data. H.L. and J.C. performed the experiment. J.C. proofed the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by Biological Resources Programme, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant no. KFJ-BRP-017-19), Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (Grant no. 2018A0303130237) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant nos. 32070223, 31200161).

Data Availability Statement

These plant materials are required for the collection of plant individuals. The plant materials are maintained in accordance with the institutional guidelines of Key Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation and Sustainable Utilization/Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Digital Botanical Garden, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China. The GenBank accession numbers are available in NCBI: MW326451, MW326454, MW326455, MW326452, MW326453, MW326456, MW326457, MW326458 and MW326459.

Acknowledgments

We thank the reviewers for comments on the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

CTABCetyltrimethy lammonium Ammonium Bromide
CPChloroplast
IRsInverted repeats
KaNon-synonymous site
KsSynonymous site
Ka/Ksthe ratio of non-synonymous site and synonymous site
LSCLarge single-copy region
MLMaximum likelihood
mono-Mononucleotides
PiNucleotide diversity values
rRNARibosomal RNAs
RSCURelative synonymous codon usage
SSCSmall single-copy region
SSRsSimple-sequence repeats
tRNATransfer RNAs

References

  1. Kress, W.J.; Prince, L.M.; Williams, K.J. The phylogeny and a new classification of the gingers (Zingiberaceae): Evidence from molecular data. Am. J. Bot. 2002, 89, 1682–1696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wu, T.L.; Larsen, K. Flora of China; Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis, MO, USA; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2000; Volume 24, pp. 322–377. [Google Scholar]
  3. Liang, H.; Wang, Q.; Ding, C.; Zhang, L.; Yang, R. Chemical composition, antioxidant and antibacterial activities of essential oil of Curcuma phaeocaulis Valeton. Bangladesh J. Bot. 2020, 49, 531–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yenjai, C.; Prasanphen, K.; Daodee, S.; Wongpanich, V.; Kittakoop, P. Bioactive flavonoids from Kaempferia parviflora. Fitoterapia 2004, 75, 89–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tuchinda, P.; Reutrakul, V.; Claeson, P.; Pongprayoon, U.; Sematong, T.; Santisuk, T.; Taylor, W.C. Anti-inflammatory cyclohexenyl chalcone derivatives in Boesenbergia pandurata. Phytochemistry 2002, 59, 169–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ngamriabsakul, C.; Newman, M.F.; Cronk, Q.C.B. The phylogeny of tribe Zingibereae (Zingiberaceae) based on ITS (nrDNA) and trnL-F (cpDNA) sequences. Edinb. J. Bot. 2004, 60, 483–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Linnaeus, C. Species Plantarum; Forgotten Books: London, UK, 1753. [Google Scholar]
  8. Záveská, E.; Fer, T.; Šída, O.; Krak, K.; Marhold, K.; Leong-Škorničková, J. Phylogeny of Curcuma (Zingiberaceae) based on plastid and nuclear sequences: Proposal of the new subgenus Ecomata. Taxon 2012, 61, 747–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Leong-Škorničková, J.; Otakar, Š.; Záveská, E.; Marhold, K. History of infrageneric classification, typification of supraspecific names and outstanding transfers in Curcuma (Zingiberaceae). Taxon 2015, 64, 362–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gagnepain, M.F. Zingibéracées Nouvelles Ou Mal Connues De L’Herbier Du Muséum. Bull. Soc. Bot. France 1901, 48, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Schumann, K.M. Zingiberaceae. In Das Pflanzenreich; Engler, A., Ed.; Engelmann: Berlin, Germany, 1904; Volume 46, pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  12. Larsen, K.; Smith, R.M. Notes on Caulokaempferia. Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinb. 1972, 31, 287–295. [Google Scholar]
  13. Wu, T.; Chen, Y. Pyrgophyllum, a new genus of Zingiberaceae from China. J. Univ. Chin. Acad. Sci. 1989, 27, 124–128. [Google Scholar]
  14. Mood, J.; MacKechnie, L.; Veldkamp, J.-F.; Dey, S. The history and identity of Boesenbergia longiflora (Zingiberaceae) and descriptions of five related taxa. Gard. Bull. Singap. 2013, 65, 47–95. [Google Scholar]
  15. Leong-Škorničková, J.; Lý, N.-S.; Poulsen, A.D.; Tosh, J.; Forrest, A. Newmania: A new ginger genus from central Vietnam. Taxon 2011, 60, 1386–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Smith, R.M. A new genus of Zingiberaceae from N. Burma. Notes Notes Roy. Bot. Gard. Edinb. 1980, 38, 13–17. [Google Scholar]
  17. Sabu, M.; Prasanthkumar, M.G.; Leong-Škorničková, J.; Jayasree, S. Transfer of Kaempferia siphonantha Baker to Boesenbergia Kuntze (Zingiberaceae). Rheedea 2004, 14, 55–59. [Google Scholar]
  18. Techaprasan, J.; Ngamriabsakul, C.; Klinbunga, S.; Chusacultanachai, S.; Jenjittikul, T. Genetic variation and species identification of Thai Boesenbergia (Zingiberaceae) analyzed by chloroplast DNA polymorphism. J. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2006, 39, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wicke, S.; Schneeweiss, G.M.; Depamphilis, C.W.; Müller, K.F.; Quandt, D. The evolution of the plastid chromosome in land plants: Gene content, gene order, gene function. Plant Mol. Biol. 2011, 76, 273–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Shinozaki, K.; Ohme, M.; Tanaka, M.; Wakasugi, T.; Hayashida, N.; Matsubayashi, T.; Zaita, N.; Chunwongse, J.; Obokata, J.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K.; et al. The complete nucleotide sequence of the tobacco chloroplast genome: Its gene organization and expression. EMBO J. 1986, 5, 2043–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Bock, R. Plastid biotechnology: Prospects for herbicide and insect resistance, metabolic engineering and molecular farming. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2007, 18, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ma, J.; Yang, B.; Zhu, W.; Sun, L.; Tian, J.; Wang, X. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of Mahonia bealei (Berberidaceae) reveals a significant expansion of the inverted repeat and phylogenetic relationship with other angiosperms. Gene 2013, 528, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zhang, Y.; Ma, J.; Yang, B.; Li, R.; Zhu, W.; Sun, L.; Tian, J.; Zhang, L. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of Taxus chinensis var. mairei (Taxaceae): Loss of an inverted repeat region and comparative analysis with related species. Gene 2014, 540, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Liang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Deng, J.; Gao, G.; Ding, C.; Zhang, L.; Yang, R. The complete chloroplast genome sequences of 14 Curcuma species: Insights into genome evolution and phylogenetic relationships within Zingiberales. Front. Genet. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Reith, M.; Munholland, J. Complete nucleotide sequence of the Porphyra purpurea chloroplast genome. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 1995, 13, 333–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hallick, R.; Hong, L.; Drager, R.; Favreau, M.; Monfort, A.; Orsat, B.; Spielmann, A.; Stutz, E. Complete sequence of Euglena gracilis chloroplast DNA. Nucl. Acids Res. 1993, 21, 3537–3544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Alwadani, K.G.; Janes, J.K.; Andrew, R.L. Chloroplast genome analysis of box-ironbark Eucalyptus. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2019, 136, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Gonçalves, D.J.; Simpson, B.B.; Ortiz, E.M.; Shimizu, G.H.; Jansen, R.K. Incongruence between gene trees and species trees and phylogenetic signal variation in plastid genes. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2019, 138, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Xue, S.; Shi, T.; Luo, W.; Ni, X.; Iqbal, S.; Ni, Z.; Huang, X.; Yao, D.; Shen, Z.; Gao, Z. Comparative analysis of the complete chloroplast genome among Prunus mume, P. armeniaca, and P. salicina. Hortic. Res. 2019, 6, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Zhang, X.; Zhou, T.; Kanwal, N.; Zhao, Y.; Bai, G.; Zhao, G. Completion of eight Gynostemma BL.(Cucurbitaceae) chloroplast genomes: Characterization, comparative analysis, and phylogenetic relationships. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Patel, R.K.; Jain, M. NGS QC Toolkit: A toolkit for quality control of next generation sequencing data. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e30619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Bankevich, A.; Nurk, S.; Antipov, D.; Gurevich, A.A.; Dvorkin, M.; Kulikov, A.S.; Lesin, V.M.; Nikolenko, S.I.; Pham, S.; Prjibelski, A.D. SPAdes: A new genome assembly algorithm and its applications to single-cell sequencing. J. Comput. Biol. 2012, 19, 455–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Li, H.; Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 2009, 25, 1754–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Huang, D.I.; Cronk, Q.C.B. Plann: A command-line application for annotating plastome sequences. Appl. Plant Sci. 2015, 3, 1500026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Wyman, S.K.; Jansen, R.K.; Boore, J.L. Automatic annotation of organellar genomes with DOGMA. Bioinformatics 2004, 20, 3252–3255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Greiner, S.; Lehwark, P.; Bock, R. OrganellarGenomeDRAW (OGDRAW) version 1.3.1: Expanded toolkit for the graphical visualization of organellar genomes. Nucl. Acids Res. 2019, 47, W59–W64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Xia, X. DAMBE5: A comprehensive software package for data analysis in molecular biology and evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30, 1720–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Frazer, K.A.; Pachter, L.; Poliakov, A.; Rubin, E.M.; Dubchak, I. VISTA: Computational tools for comparative genomics. Nucl. Acids Res. 2004, 32, 273–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rozas, J.; Ferrer-Mata, A.; Sanchez-DelBarrio, J.C.; Guirao-Rico, S.; Librado, P.; Ramos-Onsins, S.E.; Sanchez-Gracia, A. DnaSP 6: DNA sequence polymorphism analysis of large data sets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2017, 34, 3299–3302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kurtz, S.; Choudhuri, J.V.; Ohlebusch, E.; Schleiermacher, C.; Stoye, J.; Giegerich, R. REPuter: The manifold applications of repeat analysis on a genomic scale. Nucl. Acids Res. 2001, 29, 4633–4642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Katoh, K.; Standley, D.M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: Improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 30, 772–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Swofford, D.L. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods); Version 4.0 a149; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  43. Chen, J.; Hao, Z.; Xu, H.; Yang, L.; Liu, G.; Sheng, Y.; Zheng, C.; Zheng, W.; Cheng, T.; Shi, J. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of the relict woody plant Metasequoia glyptostroboides. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Powell, W.; Morgante, M.; McDevitt, R.; Vendramin, G.; Rafalski, J. Polymorphic simple sequence repeat regions in chloroplast genomes: Applications to the population genetics of pines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1995, 92, 7759–7763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Park, H.; Kim, C.; Lee, Y.M.; Kim, J.H. Development of chloroplast microsatellite markers for the endangered Maianthemum bicolor (Asparagaceae sl). Appl. Plant Sci. 2016, 4, 1600032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yan, Y.D.; Li, X.Y.; Worth, J.R.; Lin, X.Y.; Ruhsam, M.; Chen, L.; Wu, X.T.; Wang, M.q.; Thomas, P.I.; Wen, Y.F. Development of chloroplast microsatellite markers for Glyptostrobus pensilis (Cupressaceae). Appl. Plant Sci. 2019, 7, e11277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Bremer, B.; Bremer, K.; Chase, M.W.; Fay, M.F.; Reveal, J.L.; Soltis, D.E.; Soltis, P.S.; Stevens, P.F.; Anderberg, A.A.; Moore, M.J.; et al. An update of the angiosperm phylogeny group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2009, 161, 105–121. [Google Scholar]
  48. Du, Y.; Bi, Y.; Yang, F.; Zhang, M.; Chen, X.; Xue, J.; Zhang, X. Complete chloroplast genome sequences of Lilium: Insights into evolutionary dynamics and phylogenetic analyses. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Xing, Y.; Ree, R.H. Uplift-driven diversification in the Hengduan Mountains, a temperate biodiversity hotspot. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 3444–3451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Li, D.M.; Xu, Y.C.; Zhu, G.F. Complete chloroplast genome of the plant Stahlianthus Involucratus (Zingiberaceae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B Resour. 2019, 4, 2702–2703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Cui, Y.; Chen, X.; Nie, L.; Sun, W.; Hu, H.; Lin, Y.; Li, H.; Zheng, X.; Song, J.; Yao, H. Comparison and phylogenetic analysis of chloroplast genomes of three medicinal and edible Amomum species. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 4040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Cui, Y.; Nie, L.; Sun, W.; Xu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Yu, J.; Song, J.; Yao, H. Comparative and phylogenetic analyses of ginger (Zingiber officinale) in the family Zingiberaceae based on the complete chloroplast genome. Plants 2019, 8, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Gu, C.; Ma, L.; Wu, Z.; Chen, K.; Wang, Y. Comparative analyses of chloroplast genomes from 22 Lythraceae species: Inferences for phylogenetic relationships and genome evolution within Myrtales. BMC Plant Biol. 2019, 19, 281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Li, D.; Zhao, C.; Liu, X. Complete chloroplast genome sequences of Kaempferia galanga and Kaempferia elegans: Molecular structures and comparative analysis. Molecules 2019, 24, 474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Wu, C.S.; Wang, Y.N.; Liu, S.M.; Chaw, S.M. Chloroplast genome (cpDNA) of Cycas taitungensis and 56 cp protein-coding genes of Gnetum parvifolium: Insights into cpDNA evolution and phylogeny of extant seed plants. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2007, 24, 1366–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Downie, S.R.; Jansen, R.K. A comparative analysis of whole plastid genomes from the apiales: Expansion and contraction of the inverted repeat, mitochondrial to plastid transfer of DNA, and identification of highly divergent noncoding regions. Syst. Bot. 2015, 40, 336–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Williams, A.M.; Friso, G.; Van Wijk, K.J.; Sloan, D.B. Extreme variation in rates of evolution in the plastid Clp protease complex. Plant J. 2019, 98, 243–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chen, Y.; Zhong, H.; Zhu, Y.; Huang, Y.; Wu, S.; Liu, Z.; Lan, S.; Zhai, J. Plastome structure and adaptive evolution of Calanthe s.l. species. PeerJ 2020, 8, e10051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhou, T.; Ruhsam, M.; Wang, J.; Zhu, H.; Li, W.; Zhang, X.; Xu, Y.; Xu, F.; Wang, X. The complete chloroplast genome of Euphrasia regelii, pseudogenization of ndh genes and the phylogenetic relationships within Orobanchaceae. Front. Genet. 2019, 10, 444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Ivanova, Z.; Sablok, G.; Daskalova, E.; Zahmanova, G.; Apostolova, E.; Yahubyan, G.; Baev, V. Chloroplast genome analysis of resurrection tertiary relict haberlea rhodopensis highlights genes important for desiccation stress response. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Piot, A.; Hackel, J.; Christin, P.-A.; Besnard, G. One-third of the plastid genes evolved under positive selection in PACMAD grasses. Planta 2018, 247, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Parks, M.; Cronn, R.; Liston, A. Increasing phylogenetic resolution at low taxonomic levels using massively parallel sequencing of chloroplast genomes. BMC Biol. 2009, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Wheeler, G.L.; Dorman, H.E.; Buchanan, A.; Challagundla, L.; Wallace, L.E. A review of the prevalence, utility, and caveats of using chloroplast simple sequence repeats for studies of plant biology. Appl. Plant Sci. 2014, 2, 1400059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Shahzadi, I.; Abdullah; Mehmood, F.; Ali, Z.; Ahmed, I.; Mirza, B. Chloroplast genome sequences of Artemisia maritima and Artemisia absinthium: Comparative analyses, mutational hotspots in genus Artemisia and phylogeny in family Asteraceae. Genomics 2020, 112, 1454–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Wood, T.H.; Whitten, W.M.; Williams, N.H. Phylogeny of Hedychium and related genera (Zingiberaceae) based on ITS sequence data. Edinb. J. Bot. 2000, 57, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Newman, M.F. Distichochlamys, a new genus from Vietnam. Edinb. J. Bot. 1995, 52, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Searle, R.J.; Hedderson, T.A.J. A preliminary phylogeny of the Hedychieae tribe (Zingiberaceae) based on ITS sequences of the nuclear rRNA cistron. In Monocots: Systematics and Evolution; Wilson, K.L.M., Ed.; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Australia, 2000; pp. 710–718. [Google Scholar]
Forests 12 00710 g001 550
Figure 1. Circular representation of Boesenbergia kingii genomes. Genes of different functional groups, small single copy (SSC), large single copy (LSC), and inverted repeats (IRa, IRb), are separated by color. Genes drawn inside the circle are transcribed clock.
Figure 1. Circular representation of Boesenbergia kingii genomes. Genes of different functional groups, small single copy (SSC), large single copy (LSC), and inverted repeats (IRa, IRb), are separated by color. Genes drawn inside the circle are transcribed clock.
Forests 12 00710 g001
Forests 12 00710 g002 550
Figure 2. Relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) index for each amino acid codon and stop codon for nine Zingibereae species chloroplast genomes. The value of RSCU is separated by bar color.
Figure 2. Relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) index for each amino acid codon and stop codon for nine Zingibereae species chloroplast genomes. The value of RSCU is separated by bar color.
Forests 12 00710 g002
Forests 12 00710 g003 550
Figure 3. Sequence alignment of nine Zingibereae chloroplast genomes with Curcuma kwangsiensis as a reference by using mVISTA. The Y-scale represents the percentage of identity ranging from 50% to 100%.
Figure 3. Sequence alignment of nine Zingibereae chloroplast genomes with Curcuma kwangsiensis as a reference by using mVISTA. The Y-scale represents the percentage of identity ranging from 50% to 100%.
Forests 12 00710 g003
Forests 12 00710 g004 550
Figure 4. The rates of Ka and Ks in the chloroplast genomes of nine Zingibereae species.
Figure 4. The rates of Ka and Ks in the chloroplast genomes of nine Zingibereae species.
Forests 12 00710 g004
Forests 12 00710 g005 550
Figure 5. Comparison of the border positions between the LSC, SSC and IR regions among nine Zingibereae chloroplast genomes. The figure is not drawn to scale. Complete genes and portions of genes adjacent to the junctions are depicted by differently colored blocks.
Figure 5. Comparison of the border positions between the LSC, SSC and IR regions among nine Zingibereae chloroplast genomes. The figure is not drawn to scale. Complete genes and portions of genes adjacent to the junctions are depicted by differently colored blocks.
Forests 12 00710 g005
Forests 12 00710 g006 550
Figure 6. Number of long repetitive repeat types on the complete chloroplast genome sequence of nine Zingibereae species. The species are separated by color.
Figure 6. Number of long repetitive repeat types on the complete chloroplast genome sequence of nine Zingibereae species. The species are separated by color.
Forests 12 00710 g006
Forests 12 00710 g007 550
Figure 7. The comparison of SSR distribution in nine Zingibereae chloroplast genomes; (a) number of different SSR types; (b) frequency of SSRs in different region; (c) frequency of SSRs in the intergenic regions, protein-coding genes and introns.
Figure 7. The comparison of SSR distribution in nine Zingibereae chloroplast genomes; (a) number of different SSR types; (b) frequency of SSRs in different region; (c) frequency of SSRs in the intergenic regions, protein-coding genes and introns.
Forests 12 00710 g007
Forests 12 00710 g008 550
Figure 8. Sliding window analysis of the nucleotide variability (Pi) values of nine Zingibereae chloroplast genomes. x-axis: position of the midpoint of a window, y-axis: nucleotide diversity of each window.
Figure 8. Sliding window analysis of the nucleotide variability (Pi) values of nine Zingibereae chloroplast genomes. x-axis: position of the midpoint of a window, y-axis: nucleotide diversity of each window.
Forests 12 00710 g008
Forests 12 00710 g009 550
Figure 9. Phylogenetic trees of the Zingibereae species inferred from maximum likelihood (ML) analyses based on the chloroplast genome constructed using coding region data. Support for branches is given by bootstrap values (if values ≥ 75%).
Figure 9. Phylogenetic trees of the Zingibereae species inferred from maximum likelihood (ML) analyses based on the chloroplast genome constructed using coding region data. Support for branches is given by bootstrap values (if values ≥ 75%).
Forests 12 00710 g009
Table
Table 1. List of nine Zingibereae species sampled together with their voucher specimen numbers and GenBank accession numbers.
Table 1. List of nine Zingibereae species sampled together with their voucher specimen numbers and GenBank accession numbers.
NumberSpeciesVoucher NumberLocalityAccession Number
1Boesenbergia kingii17081502 (IBSC)Yunnan, ChinaMW326451
2Curcuma ruiliensis17082304 (IBSC)Yunnan, ChinaMW326454
3Curcuma aff. singularis1722 (IBSC)Chiangmai, ThailandMW326455
4Curcuma aff. plicata17081107 (IBSC)Yunnan, ChinaMW326452
5Curcuma kwangsiensis17083001 (IBSC)Guangxi, ChinaMW326453
6Curcuma wenyujin201544 (IBSC)Guangdong, ChinaMW326456
7Kaempferia rotunda17081102 (IBSC)Yunnan, ChinaMW326457
8Pyrgophyllum yunnanense2014106 (IBSC)Sichuan, ChinaMW326458
9Stahlianthusinvolucratus19031203 (IBSC)LaosMW326459
Table
Table 2. Complete chloroplast genomes of nine Zingibereae species.
Table 2. Complete chloroplast genomes of nine Zingibereae species.
SpeciesSizePCGstRNAsrRNAsGenesGC%Length (LSC)Length (SSC)Length (IR)GC% (LSC)GC% (SSC)GC% (IR)
B. kingii163,1988838813436.1688,00915,70129,74433.9529.6641.15
C. aff. plicata162,1698738813336.2086,94315,74229,74234.0129.6241.14
C. ruiliensis162,2428738813336.1987,02215,74029,74033.9929.5641.16
C. aff. singularis163,5398738813336.0788,25115,83029,72933.8329.5141.15
C. kwangsiensis162,1798738813336.1887,01415,66529,75033.9729.6541.13
C. wenyujin162,1658738813336.1987,00015,66529,75033.9829.6641.13
K. rotunda162,3918738813336.2587,01815,75329,81034.1129.6641.12
P. yunnanense162,0428638813236.0687,26116,02329,37933.8129.1441.30
S. involucratus163,2988838813436.0087,49615,56830,11733.7829.6040.89
GC guanine–cytosine, LSC large single-copy region, SSC short single-copy region, IRs inverted repeats.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liang, H.; Chen, J. Comparison and Phylogenetic Analyses of Nine Complete Chloroplast Genomes of Zingibereae. Forests 2021, 12, 710. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060710

AMA Style

Liang H, Chen J. Comparison and Phylogenetic Analyses of Nine Complete Chloroplast Genomes of Zingibereae. Forests. 2021; 12(6):710. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060710

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liang, Heng, and Juan Chen. 2021. "Comparison and Phylogenetic Analyses of Nine Complete Chloroplast Genomes of Zingibereae" Forests 12, no. 6: 710. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060710

APA Style

Liang, H., & Chen, J. (2021). Comparison and Phylogenetic Analyses of Nine Complete Chloroplast Genomes of Zingibereae. Forests, 12(6), 710. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060710

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop