Search for: All records

PremisePhylogenetic studies in the Compositae are challenging due to the sheer size of the family and the challenges they pose for molecular tools, ranging from the genomic impact of polyploid events to their very conserved plastid genomes. The search for better molecular tools for phylogenetic studies led to the development of the family‐specific Compositae1061 probe set, as well as the universal Angiosperms353 probe set designed for all flowering plants. In this study, we evaluate the extent to which data generated using the family‐specific kit and those obtained with the universal kit can be merged for downstream analyses. MethodsWe used comparative methods to verify the presence of shared loci between probe sets. Using two sets of eight samples sequenced with Compositae1061 and Angiosperms353, we ran phylogenetic analyses with and without loci flagged as paralogs, a gene tree discordance analysis, and a complementary phylogenetic analysis mixing samples from both sample sets. ResultsOur results show that the Compositae1061 kit provides an average of 721 loci, with 9–46% of them presenting paralogs, while the Angiosperms353 set yields an average of 287 loci, which are less affected by paralogy. Analyses mixing samples from both sets showed that the presence of 30 shared loci in the probe sets allows the combination of data generated in different ways. DiscussionCombining data generated using different probe sets opens up the possibility of collaborative efforts and shared data within the synantherological community. 

PremiseComprising five families that vastly differ in species richness—ranging from Gelsemiaceae with 13 species to the Rubiaceae with 13,775 species—members of the Gentianales are often among the most species‐rich and abundant plants in tropical forests. Despite considerable phylogenetic work within particular families and genera, several alternative topologies for family‐level relationships within Gentianales have been presented in previous studies. MethodsHere we present a phylogenomic analysis based on nuclear genes targeted by the Angiosperms353 probe set for approximately 150 species, representing all families and approximately 85% of the formally recognized tribes. We were able to retrieve partial plastomes from off‐target reads for most taxa and infer phylogenetic trees for comparison with the nuclear‐derived trees. ResultsWe recovered high support for over 80% of all nodes. The plastid and nuclear data are largely in agreement, except for some weakly to moderately supported relationships. We discuss the implications of our results for the order’s classification, highlighting points of increased support for previously uncertain relationships. Rubiaceae is sister to a clade comprising (Gentianaceae + Gelsemiaceae) + (Apocynaceae + Loganiaceae). ConclusionsThe higher‐level phylogenetic relationships within Gentianales are confidently resolved. In contrast to recent studies, our results support the division of Rubiaceae into two subfamilies: Cinchonoideae and Rubioideae. We do not formally recognize Coptosapelteae and Luculieae within any particular subfamily but treat them as incertae sedis. Our framework paves the way for further work on the phylogenetics, biogeography, morphological evolution, and macroecology of this important group of flowering plants.