Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35313810›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2022

Comparative plastome analysis of Musaceae and new insights into phylogenetic relationships.

Ning Fu, Meiyuan Ji, Mathieu Rouard, Hai-Fei Yan, Xue-Jun Ge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Unveiling the potential of banana (Plant signaling & behavior · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Banana breeding by genome design.Journal of integrative plant biology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Calcium-Binding Protein and Polymorphism inCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Chromosome-level genome assemblies ofHorticulture research · 2024
    Article
  12. Phylogeny and Taxonomic Revision of the GenusPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ning Fu *Key Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation and Sustainable Utilization, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8091-0690
Meiyuan Ji *Key Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation and Sustainable Utilization, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7344-4399
Mathieu RouardBioversity International, Parc Scientifique Agropolis II, 34397, Montpellier Cedex 5, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0284-1885
Hai-Fei YanKey Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation and Sustainable Utilization, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5692-9391
Xue-Jun GeKey Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation and Sustainable Utilization, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China. xjge@scbg.ac.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5008-9475

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China No. 32070237, 31261140366
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMusaceae is an economically important family consisting of 70-80 species. Elucidation of the interspecific relationships of this family is essential for a more efficient conservation and utilization of genetic resources for banana improvement. However, the scarcity of herbarium specimens and quality molecular markers have limited our understanding of the phylogenetic relationships in wild species of Musaceae. Aiming at improving the phylogenetic resolution of Musaceae, we analyzed a comprehensive set of 49 plastomes for 48 species/subspecies representing all three genera of this family.

resultsMusaceae plastomes have a relatively well-conserved genomic size and gene content, with a full length ranging from 166,782 bp to 172,514 bp. Variations in the IR borders were found to show phylogenetic signals to a certain extent in Musa. Codon usage bias analysis showed different preferences for the same codon between species and three genera and a common preference for A/T-ending codons. Among the two genes detected under positive selection (dN/dS > 1), ycf2 was indicated under an intensive positive selection. The divergent hotspot analysis allowed the identification of four regions (ndhF-trnL, ndhF, matK-rps16, and accD) as specific DNA barcodes for Musaceae species. Bayesian and maximum likelihood phylogenetic analyses using full plastome resulted in nearly identical tree topologies with highly supported relationships between species. The monospecies genus Musella is sister to Ensete, and the genus Musa was divided into two large clades, which corresponded well to the basic number of n = x = 11 and n = x =10/9/7, respectively. Four subclades were divided within the genus Musa. A dating analysis covering the whole Zingiberales indicated that the divergence of Musaceae family originated in the Palaeocene (59.19 Ma), and the genus Musa diverged into two clades in the Eocene (50.70 Ma) and then started to diversify from the late Oligocene (29.92 Ma) to the late Miocene. Two lineages (Rhodochlamys and Australimusa) radiated recently in the Pliocene /Pleistocene periods.

conclusionsThe plastome sequences performed well in resolving the phylogenetic relationships of Musaceae and generated new insights into its evolution. Plastome sequences provided valuable resources for population genetics and phylogenetics at lower taxon.

Indexed as

MagnoliopsidaMusaMusaceaeBayes TheoremPhylogenycpDNA markerDivergence timeMusaceaePhylogenyPlastome

Identifiers

PMID35313810
PMCPMC8939231

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.