Highly rearranged and size‐variable chloroplast genomes in conifers II clade (cupressophytes): evolution towards shorter intergenic spacers

• DOI: 10.1111/pbi.12141
• Publication Date: 2013-11-28T05:24:39Z
• Authors: Chung‐Shien Wu; Shu‐Miaw Chaw
• Keywords: Gene Rearrangement; 0301 basic medicine; Chloroplasts; DNA, Plant; DNA, Chloroplast; Molecular Sequence Annotation; Sequence Analysis, DNA; 15. Life on land; Evolution, Molecular; Plant Leaves; Tracheophyta; 03 medical and health sciences; Genome Size; Genomic Structural Variation; Mutation; DNA, Intergenic; Genome, Chloroplast; Sequence Alignment; Phylogeny

SummaryAlthough conifers are of immense ecological and economic value, bioengineering of their chloroplasts remains undeveloped. Understanding the chloroplast genomic organization of conifers can facilitate their bioengineering. Members of the conifer II clade (or cupressophytes) are highly diverse in both morphologic features and chloroplast genomic organization. We compared six cupressophyte chloroplast genomes (cpDNAs) that represent four of the five cupressophyte families, including three genomes that are first reported here (Agathis dammara, Calocedrus formosana and Nageia nagi). The six cupressophyte cpDNAs have lost a pair of large inverted repeats (IRs) and vary greatly in size, organization and tRNA copies. We demonstrate that cupressophyte cpDNAs have evolved towards reduced size, largely due to shrunken intergenic spacers. In cupressophytes, cpDNA rearrangements are capable of extending intergenic spacers, and synonymous mutations are negatively associated with the size and frequency of rearrangements. The variable cpDNA sizes of cupressophytes may have been shaped by mutational burden and genomic rearrangements. On the basis of cpDNA organization, our analyses revealed that in gymnosperms, cpDNA rearrangements are phylogenetically informative, which supports the ‘gnepines’ clade. In addition, removal of a specific IR influences the minimal rearrangements required for the gnepines and cupressophyte clades, whereby Pinaceae favours the removal of IRB but cupressophytes exclusion of IRA. This result strongly suggests that different IR copies have been lost from conifers I and II. Our data help understand the complexity and evolution of cupressophyte cpDNAs.