Next Article in Journal
Ehlers-Danlos: A Literature Review and Case Report in a Colombian Woman with Multiple Comorbidities
Next Article in Special Issue
Complete Chloroplast Genome Sequences of Four Species in the Caladium Genus: Comparative and Phylogenetic Analyses
Previous Article in Journal
Mating Systems of Single Families and Population Genetic Diversity of Endangered Ormosia hosiei in South China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Variation among the Complete Chloroplast Genomes of the Sumac Species Rhus chinensis: Reannotation and Comparative Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Genes
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/genes13112116
genes-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Analysis of the Chloroplast Genome of Cardamine hupingshanensis and Phylogenetic Study of Cardamine

by
Sunan Huang
1,
Zujie Kang
2,
Zhenfa Chen
2 and
Yunfei Deng
1,3,*
1
Key Laboratory of Plant Resources Conservation & Sustainable Utilization, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510650, China
2
Management Bureau of Hunan Hupingshan National Nature Reserve, Shimen 415300, China
3
Center of Conservation Biology, Core Botanical Gardens, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510650, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Genes 2022, 13(11), 2116; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13112116
Submission received: 30 September 2022 / Revised: 1 November 2022 / Accepted: 9 November 2022 / Published: 15 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Evolution of Plant Organelle Genome)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cardamine hupingshanensis (K. M. Liu, L. B. Chen, H. F. Bai and L. H. Liu) is a perennial herbal species endemic to China with narrow distribution. It is known as an important plant for investigating the metabolism of selenium in plants because of its ability to accumulate selenium. However, the phylogenetic position of this particular species in Cardamine remains unclear. In this study, we reported the chloroplast genome (cp genome) for the species C. hupingshanensis and analyzed its position within Cardamine. The cp genome of C. hupingshanensis is 155,226 bp in length and exhibits a typical quadripartite structure: one large single copy region (LSC, 84,287 bp), one small single copy region (17,943 bp) and a pair of inverted repeat regions (IRs, 26,498 bp). Guanine-Cytosine (GC) content makes up 36.3% of the total content. The cp genome contains 111 unique genes, including 78 protein-coding genes, 29 tRNA genes and 4 rRNA genes. A total of 115 simple sequences repeats (SSRs) and 49 long repeats were identified in the genome. Comparative analyses among 17 Cardamine species identified the five most variable regions (trnH-GUG-psbA, ndhK-ndhC, trnW-CCA-trnP-UGG, rps11-rpl36 and rpl32-trnL-UAG), which could be used as molecular markers for the classification and phylogenetic analyses of various Cardamine species. Phylogenetic analyses based on 79 protein coding genes revealed that the species C. hupingshanensis is more closely related to the species C. circaeoides. This relationship is supported by their shared morphological characteristics.

1. Introduction

Cardamine Linnaeus is the third largest genus in the family Brassicaceae. The genus comprises approximately 200 species distributed in all continents except Antarctica [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Cardamine was placed in the tribe Arabideae in the past [3], and it is now placed in the tribe Cardmineae on the basis of molecular evidence [4,5,9]. This genus is characterized by basal leaves that are petiolate, rosulate or not, simple and entire, and toothed; racemes that ebracteate or rarely bracteate throughout or only basally, corymbose or in panicles, and elongated in fruit; fruiting pedicels that are slender or thickened, erect, divaricate, or reflexed; petals that are white, pink, purple, or violet; claws that are strongly differentiated from blades or absent, or longer or shorter than sepals. Comprehensive phylogenetic studies of the genus have been considered to be difficult. The main reasons are the diversity of species and multiple events of polyploidization and hybridization within the genus [10,11,12]. Additionally, species belonging to this genus display significant high homogeneity in morphological characters, which makes it difficult to subdivide the genus.
Cardamine hupingshanensis (K. M. Liu, L. B. Chen, H. F. Bai and L. H. Liu) is a perennial herb restricted to the neighboring areas between the Hunan and Hupei provinces in China. It is easily distinguished from other species by its simple cauline leaves resembling basal leaves with broadly obovate petals [13,14]. It grows only in cloudy slopes or valleys with coal gangue and running water. Its tender stems and leaves are edible, delicious and nutritious [14,15]. However, the species was assessed as endangered when first published [13], due to its limited populations and excessive harvest by locals. In recent years, the plant has become a research hotspot for its superior selenium enrichment ability. Zhou et al. analyzed the mechanisms of selenium tolerance in C. hupingshanensis with transcriptome data from leaves and roots, respectively [16]. Selenium is an essential and beneficial mineral element important to human health. Although high concentrations of selenium are toxic to plants, we still need the organic selenium enriched by plants to supplement this element [17,18].
Comparing the genomes of C. hupingshanensis and its related species should contribute to further understanding of the genes related to selenium tolerance. It should also enhance our knowledge of the mechanisms of selenium tolerance in plants. However, the systematic position of this particular species remains unknown. Sequencing for this particular species and molecular analysis for the genus Cardamine is not only vital for future identification and conservation of the species C. hupingshanensis, but also beneficial for finding its related species and revealing the phylogenetic relationships of Cardamine.
Chloroplasts are semi-autonomous organelles in plants, algae and cyanobacteria [19]. The chloroplasts of the higher plants sustain life on Earth through photosynthesis [20]. Despite the fact that the majority of proteins are encoded by a nuclear genome [21], the chloroplast genome (cp genome) plays an essential role in encoding some of the chloroplast proteins, such as the hypothetical chloroplast YCF2 protein [22]. Generally, in the structure of most cp genomes, two identical fragments called inverted repeats (IRs) can be identified, which are separated by one large single copy region (LSC) and one small single copy region (SSC) [23,24,25,26,27,28]. These four regions make up a single quadripartite circular structure about 110 to 170 kb in length [19,29,30,31]. In many evolutionary studies, the cp genomes have been proven to have advantages in lacking recombination events, maternal inheritance, abundance in plants and relatively simple structures [23,26,32,33,34,35,36,37]. The cpDNA regions have been shown to effectively address the genetic variation patterns of some species in Cardamine [10,11]. Compared with phylogenetic studies with a few DNA fragments, the cp genome could potentially provide more parsimony-informative sites. So far, more than 8000 complete cp genomes have been published in the NCBI database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/browse#!/organelles/ (accessed on 30 September 2022)). Among them, a total of 22 species of Cardamine, to date, have been sequenced and uploaded (Supplementary Table S1).
In the present study, we sequenced and annotated the complete cp genome of C. hupingshanensis. Seventeen available Cardamine cp genomes were characterized and compared to further understand the cp genomes of Cardamine and identify potential molecular markers to classify C. hupingshanensis and its closely related species. A total of 51 species of Brassicaceae were used for the phylogeny investigation based on cp genomes. It is anticipated that the study should determine the systematic position of the plant C. hupingshanensis and guide the further study of its selenium tolerance mechanism.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Materials and DNA Extraction

Fresh leaves of C. hupingshanensis from multiple individuals were collected from Hupingshan National Natural Reserve (Hunan, China) and dried in silica gel immediately after collection by Prof. Deng Yunfei and Prof. Kang Ming. The voucher specimen (specimen number D27116) was deposited at the herbarium of South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IBSC). The genomic DNA was extracted using a modified cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) method [38].

2.2. Genome Sequencing, Assembly and Annotation

The DNA was sheared to yield approximately 500 bp fragments for library construction. The library preparation was performed using the Nextera XT DNA Library Prep Kit (Illumina) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Illumina Hiseq X Ten instruments at BGI-Wuhan were used to perform paired-end sequencing for each sample. After sequencing, a total of 12,176,144 reads of 150 bp base read length were generated. For the assembly and annotation, the cp genome sequence of Cardamine parviflora (accession number: NC_036964) was used as reference. The sequenced clean pair-end reads were filtered and assembled using GetOrganelle v. 1.7.1a [39]. The genome was automatically annotated using Plastid Genome Annotator v. 2019 [40], coupled with manual correction in Geneious v. 11.0.4 [41]. All tRNA genes were further determined using the online tRNAscan-SE service v. 2.0 [42]. The circular cp genome map was created using OGDRAW v. 1.3.1 (http://ogdraw.mpimp-golm.mpg.de/ (accessed on 15 July 2020)) [43].

2.3. Structural Analysis and Genome Comparison

The annotated protein coding genes of C. hupingshanensis were used for the analysis codon usage. The Relative Synonymous Codon Usage (RSCU) was calculated for all codons using CodonW v. 1.4.2 [44].
The complete cp genomes of 17 Cardamine species were compared using mVISTA v. 2.0 [45] with ShuffleLAGAN mode and the annotation of C. hupingshanensis as a reference. DnaSP v. 5.1 [46] was used to calculate the nucleotide variance (Pi) of coding regions and non-coding regions within the 17 Cardamine species. IRscope (https://irscope.shinyapps.io/irapp/ (accessed on 3 September 2020)) [47] was used to compare the single copy regions and inverted repeat boundaries in the 17 cp genomes of Cardamine. To identify polymorphic SSRs among all Cardamine species, the simple sequence repeats (SSRs) were identified for each species using MISA v. 1.0 [48]. The locations and lengths of long repeats (including forward, palindrome, complement, and reverse repeats) were analyzed using REPuter v. 2.74 [49] with the minimum repeat size set to 20 bp. Tandem repeats were determined using Tandem Repeats Finder v. 4.09 [50].

2.4. Dataset Construction and Phylogenetic Analysis

A total of 51 complete cp DNA sequences belonging to the family Brassicaceae were obtained from NCBI GenBank database (Table S1). Tarenaya hassleriana (Cleomaceae, KX886354) and Capparis versicolor (Capparaceae, MH142726) were used as outgroups. For the phylogenetic analysis, the distribution of the 38 species among different tribes in Brassicaceae were as follows: Cardamineae (31), Camelineae (2), Aethionemeae (2), Lepidieae (2), Alysseae (2), Arabideae (2), Brassiceae (3), Cochlearieae (2), Anastaticeae (1), Euclidieae (1), Anchonieae (1) and Sisymbrieae (1). Seventy-nine protein-coding sequences were extracted from the cp genomes and were aligned separately using MAFFT v. 1.3.7 [51]. The alignments were manually examined and adjusted as needed. All alignment genes were concatenated together, resulting in a total length of 71365 bp dataset.
The substitution models with the best fit were chosen by MrModeltest v. 2.3 (Nylander 2004). RAxML v. 8.0.0 [52] was used to reconstruct the phylogenetic relationship with the maximum likelihood (ML) method. Maximum parsimony (MP) analysis was run in Paup v. 4.0a [53]. Bootstrap values exceeding 50% were shown next to the corresponding branches. Bayesian inference (BI) analysis was conducted using MrBayes 3.2.7 [54] with posterior probabilities (PP) obtained for each branch.

3. Results

3.1. General Features of the C. hupingshanensis cp Genome

The complete cp genome of C. hupingshanensis is 155226 bp in length with one large single copy region (LSC, 84,287 bp), one small single copy region (17,943 bp) and a pair of inverted regions (IRs, 26,498 bp). A total of 111 unique genes were identified within the C. hupingshanensis genome, including 78 protein-coding genes, 29 tRNA genes and 4 rRNA genes. Five protein-coding, seven t-RNA and all four rRNA genes are duplicated because they are located in the IR region. A total of 61 protein-coding genes and 21 tRNA genes are situated in the LSC region, while the SSC region contains 12 protein-coding genes and 1 tRNA gene. Eight protein-coding genes have one intron and three protein-coding genes have two introns (Figure 1, Table 1 and Table 2). Guanine-Cytosine (GC) content makes up 36.3% of the total content. The GC content in IR regions (42.4%) is higher than that of LSC and SSC regions (34% and 29.2%).

3.2. Analysis of Codon Bias

Overall, 77,850 bp protein-coding genes were identified in the cp genome of C. hupingshanensis, accounting for 50.15% of the entire genome sequence. These genes were encoded in 25,950 codons (Table 3). Of all the codons, Cysteine (Cys, encoded by UGU and UGC, 1.19%) and leucine (Leu, encoded by UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA and CUG, 10.63%) were the lowest- and highest-frequency amino acids, respectively. The GC content in all protein-coding regions was 37%. The GC content for the first, second and third positions of codons were 39.0%, 34.8% and 37.5%, respectively. Notably, the majority of the preferred codons (RSCU > 1) ended with A or U, with the exception of UUG (RSCU = 1.13).

3.3. Comparative Analysis of Genome Structure in Cardamine

Understanding the cp genome differences among species is necessary to measure the species variations. It is also vital to further understand the evolution of the chloroplast. In this study, the complete chloroplast genome of C. hupingshanensis was presented, and 16 previously released completed sequences of Cardamine species were summarized and shown in Table 2. The smallest genome was in C. glanduligera (153,828 bp), and C. impatiens (155,611 bp) had the largest cp genome (Table 1).
Comparison of overall cp genome sequence variations in mVISTA showed that the 17 cp genomes within the genus Cardamine were highly conserved (Figure 2). Divergence in LSC and SSC regions were higher, whereas variations in IR regions were less discernible. Additionally, among all cp genomes, most divergent regions were apparent in the non-coding regions, particularly the intergenic spacers. The obvious divergent regions in Cardamine were the trnK-UUU-rps16, psbK-trnS-GCU, trnY-GUA-trnT-GGU, ndhC-trnV-UAC, accD-psaI, psbE-petL, ndhF-rpl32 and rpl32-trnL-UAG intergenic spacers. In order to further confirm the sequence variations, the nucleotide variability (Pi) was calculated for the coding and non-coding regions, respectively (Figure 3). Although most of the sequence alignments were rather conserved (Pi < 0.01), five hotspot regions were still found with Pi > 0.04 (trnH-GUG-psbA, ndhK-ndhC, trnW-CCA-trnP-UGG, rps11-rpl36 and rpl32-trnL-UAG). In the coding regions, 11 protein coding genes (matK, rps16, psbM, accD, rpl33, rpl22, ndhF, rpl32, ccsA, ndhD and ndhG) were found to be more divergent with Pi > 0.01.
Despite the fact that the cp genomes were found to be conserved among Cardamine species, some IR contraction and expansion events were still found (Figure 4). Compared to other Cardamine species, the IR/SC boundaries in C. hupingshanensis were quite conserved. Four genes, trnH-GUG, rps19, ycf1 and ndhF, are located at the IR-SSC and IR-LSC borders. The positioning of the whole ndhF gene in the SSC region was observed only in the genome of C. parviflora, while the gene was found to have 25–85 bp in the IRb regions of other species. The rps19 gene was found to have 162 bp in the IRb region of C. parviflora, while the distances were 106–114 bp in other Cardamine species. At the junction of SSC/IRa regions, the IRa regions extended 1021–1039 bp into the ycf1 genes for all analyzed Cardamine species except for C. parviflora (1074 bp).

3.4. Repeat Analysis

Five categories of long repeats (tandem, complement, forward, palindromic and reverse repeats) were detected and analyzed in the cp genome of C. hupingshanensis. A total of 75 long repeats, of which 26 were tandem repeats, 1 complement repeat, 17 forward repeats, 28 palindromic repeats and 3 reverse repeats, were identified in the genome. All the repeats ranged in size from 12 to 44 bp. Most of the repeats were between 20 and 29 bp (78.67%), followed by 10–19 bp (14.67%), while 40–49 bp were the least frequent (2.67%).
Simple sequence repeats (SSRs) are short stretches of DNA consist of only one, or a few, tandemly repeated nucleotides that distributed throughout the genome. The presence of SSRs is found to be an indicator of mutation hotspots in the genome [23,34,55]. In this study, a total of 115 simple sequences repeats (SSRs) were identified in the cp genome of C. hupingshanensis. The number of mono-, di-, tri-, tetra-, penta- and hexanucleotides were 82, 17, 3, 9, 3 and 1, respectively (Supplementary Table S2). Among them, the mononucleotides were the most abundant (71.30%), and the hexanucleotides was the least (0.9%). The exact locations of SSRs in the cp genome are shown in Supplementary Table S3. The corresponding locations were further classified as intergenic spacers (IGS), introns and coding sequences (CDS). The majority of the SSRs were found in the intergenic spacer regions (71.13%) while the coding sequence introns contained the least (12.37%). The SSRs among the cp genomes of the 17 Cardamine species were identified and compared (Figure 5). The comparison indicated a high frequency of mononucleotides across all cp genomes (60.00–71.56%). A total of 26 SSRs were identified as polymorphic SSRs among the 17 Cardamine species, which could be used as candidate genetic markers for further population genetic studies in the genus Cardamine (Table 4).

3.5. Phylogenetic Analysis

The best-fit models for ML and BI analysis were SYM+G. The phylogeny obtained from the MP, ML and BI analyses showed high congruence in tree topologies (Figure 6), which strongly support for the four monophyletic major clades of the family Brassicaceae [BP(MP) = 100%, BP(ML) = 100%, PP = 1.0]. As in previous studies, the tribe Aethionemeae was the basal-most clade in Brassicaceae, followed by diversification of three major evolutionary lineages [56,57,58,59,60]. The tribe Cardamineae was resolved as sister to the clade formed by Camelineae and Lepidieae in clade I. Clade II comprises two tribes: Euclidieae and Anchonieae. Six tribes, Alysseae, Sisymbrieae, Brassiceae, Arabideae, Anastaticeae and Cochlearieae, belonged to clade III, which was identified as sister to clade II with high support [BP(MP) = 100%, BP(ML) = 100%, PP = 1.0].
The monophyly of the genus Cardamine was strongly supported [BP(MP) = 100%, BP(ML) = 100%, PP = 1.0], in which the genus was divided into three major clades. Clade 1 comprises C. heptaphylla, C. pentaphyllos and C. kitaibelii, being the earliest diverging lineages. Clade 2 containes ten species: C. oligosperma, C. hirsuta, C. macrophylla, C. glanduligera, C. tangutorum, C. impatiens, C. quinquefolia, C. abchasica, C. bipinnata and C. bulbifera. Clade 3 includes C. resedifolia, C. amara, C. enneaphyllos, C. parviflora, C. amariformis, C. occulta, C. fallax, C. circaeoides, C. lyrata and C. hupingshanensis. C. resedifolia was found to be the earliest diverging species in this clade, followed by C. amara and C. enneaphyllos. The sample C. hupingshanensis in the present study was closest to the clade formed by C. circaeoides and C. lyrata.

4. Discussion

4.1. Sequence Variations in Cardamine

Sixteen previously released completed sequences of Cardamine and the newly sequenced cp genome of C. hupingshanensis were used for comparison in this study. No considerable structural rearrangements were detected in the cp genomes of Cardamine species. The gene organization, content and order in Cardamine genomes appeared to be highly conserved in all seventeen species. Of all analyzed Cardamine cp genomes, C. glanduligera had the smallest cp genome (153,828 bp) with the smallest LSC region (83,124 bp), and C. impatiens had the largest cp genome (155,611 bp) with the largest LSC region (84,696 bp). We assume that the genome size of Cardamine species is positively related to the size of the LSC region, and this phenomenon has also been identified in other plant groups [23,26,35,36,37,55]. Codons were shown to have a strong tendency toward A or U at the third codon position, which is similar to the expression of an A/U ending in other plants [23,25,34,55,61]. This phenomenon may explain why the Adenine-Thymine (AT) content is slightly higher than the GC content in all cp genomes of Cardamine.
mVISTA revealed a low divergence between the genomes of the Cardamine species, and the IR regions were more conserved than the SC regions. This phenomenon has been found in other angiosperms as well [23,25,26,33,34,36,37,61]. Expansion and contraction events at the junctions of SSR/IR and LSC/IR regions have been recognized as evolutionary signals [23,34,62,63]. In our results, the IR regions are rather conserved in structure. Only one species, C. parviflora, showed different features compared to other species in this genus. At the LSC/IRb and SSC/IRa border, the IR region of C. parviflora expanded, while at the junction of IRb/SSC, the border moved towards the IR region. These findings showed that the changes at IR/SC borders are random and very minimal, which further support the notion that chloroplast in plants evolved slowly.

4.2. Molecular Markers for Cardamine

Polymorphic SSRs are the same units with different unit numbers located in the homologous regions. They are frequently used to identify variable species complexes [23,34,64,65,66,67]. In this study, a total of 26 polymorphic SSRs are identified. The polymorphic SSRs identified in this study could be used as candidate genetic markers for further population genetic studies in the genus Cardamine. Given the variability of the regions related to these SSRs (Table 4), many of the regions were found to be mutation hotspots (Pi > 0.01), which further confirmed the concept that the presence of the polymorphic SSRs is correlated with the genome recombination and rearrangement events [66].
The most divergent regions among the Cardamine species, as determined by a comparison of nucleotide variability, were trnH-GUG-psbA (Pi = 0.06992), ndhK-ndhC (Pi = 0.04848), trnW-CCA-trnP-UGG (Pi = 0.04147), rps11-rpl36 (Pi = 0.04705) and rpl32-trnL-UAG (Pi = 0.04219). The variability in these regions was much higher than that of the regions ndhF (Pi = 0.01355), matK (Pi = 0.01747), aptB (Pi = 0.00754) and rbcL (Pi = 0.00338), which were formerly used as DNA barcodes for the family Brassicaceae and other angiosperms [30,68]. The highly variable regions identified here could be validated and used as molecular markers in future species delimitation and phylogenetic studies.

4.3. Inferring the Phylogeny and Species Identification of Cardamine

Cardamine and Dentaria have been recognized as closely related genera by several authors. Dentaria is considered to be different from Cardamine in having larger flowers, fleshier and larger rhizomes, less-often palmately divided cauline leaves and ordinarily cotyledons [69,70,71]. However, Crantz [72] united two genera under Cardamine and his treatment has been followed by many authors [1,3,73,74,75,76,77,78,79]. In Schulz’s classification [73,74], the species previously published in Dentaria were placed into four sections, sect. Dentaria (L.) O.E.Schulz, sect. Eutreptophyllum O.E. Schulz, sect. Sphaerotorrhiza O.E. Schulz, and sect. Macrophyllum O.E. Schulz. Jones [75] divided the genus into two subgenera and treated Dentaria as a subgenus (subg. Dentaria (L.) Jones) within Cardamine. Based on the molecular evidence from the trnL intron and ndhF sequence data, Sweeney and Price [80] concluded that Dentaria is not monophyletic and the inclusion of Dentaria within Cardamine could be accepted. In the present study, seven species of Dentaria were included, nested within Cardamine and separated into four clades. This implies that the genera Cardamine and Dentaria are paraphyletic, and the broader sense of Cardamine, including the genus Dentaria, is monophyletic. Therefore, our analysis supports uniting Dentaria and Cardamine as one single genus.
The infrageneric classification of Cardamine is controversial. In his monograph of Cardamine, Schulz [73,74] recognized 130 species and divided the genus into 13 sections. In his treatment, six sections are monotypic, and the largest section, Cardamine, includes nearly two-thirds of the species of the genus. Schultz’s classification has been criticized by several authors for over-emphasizing a few morphological characteristics [3,81]. Jones [75] recognized two subgenera, i.e., subg. Cardamine and subg. Dentaria (L.) Hook.f. The previous molecular studies [2,12,80,82,83] have shown that some of his sections (e.g., sect. Cardamine, sect. Dentaria, sect. Macrocarpus O.E. Schulz, sect. Macrophyllum and Papyrophyllum O.E. Schulz) are not monophyletic. In the present study, to follow the classification of Schulz [73,74], one species of sect. Cardaminiella, two species of sect. macrophyllum, eleven species of sect. Cardmine, and eight species of sect. Dentaria were included. Our results show that sect Macrophyllum, sect. Dentaria and sect. Cardamine are not monophyletic. Neither Schulz’s nor Jones’s classification is supported in the present study, which is in accord with the previous works. However, due to the limit species involved in the present studies, the infrageneric classification is not resolved and further studies are necessary to include more species.
Understanding genetic variation within the Cardamine species plays an important role in improving genetic diversity and is essential for future analysis of the reproduction patterns and adaptive changes of the species within it. It could further enhance our understanding the mechanisms of selenium tolerance, which yet have only been focused on one species, C. hupingshanensis. The complete cp genomes have been successfully used to resolve phylogenetic relationships at multiple taxonomic levels in recent years [23,25,26,27,30,33,34,37,55,61,63,66,84,85]. Our phylogenetic results, based on 51 cp genomes of Brassicaceae, further confirmed the monophyly of the genus Cardamine and the placement of this genus within the tribe Cardamineae, which was consistent with recent Brassicaceae phylogenetic studies based on plastid or nuclear datasets [57,58,60]. In this study, all the analyzed 17 Cardamine species were classified into three clades. The earliest diverging lineage comprises C. heptaphylla, C. pentaphyllos and C. kitaibelii, which is characterized by flowering leafless stems. In contrast, the other two clades have leafy flowering stems. Clade 2 contained ten species: C. oligosperma, C. hirsuta, C. macrophylla, C. glanduligera, C. tangutorum, C. impatiens, C. quinquefolia, C. abchasica, C. bipinnata and C. bulbifera. This clade is characterized by cauline compound leaves. Clade 3 consisted of ten species, which have the synapomorphy of the presence of cauline leaves and erect stems, simple or branched above and/or basally. Within this clade, two samples of C. hupingshanensis formed a cluster with C. lyrata and C. circaeoides. However, the samples from Enshi (accession ON322745) is isolated with our sample from Hupingshan population from which the type specimens of C. hupingshanensis were made. Before C. hupingshanensis was published, plants from Enshi were named as Cardamine enshiensis by Y.Y Wu and T.Y. Xiang but not validly published. After this, C. enshiensis was merged with C. hupingshanensis by Wang et al. [86]. C. hupingshanensis is similar to C. circaeoides in terms of the simple leaves, which are rarely obscurely two- or three-lobed, and cauline leaves resemble basal leaves, but differ in their broadly obovate petals, 8–10 x 7–9 mm. Besides, C. circaeoides is widely distributed from Central & Western China to the Himalayan region. Cardamine lyrata is quite different from C. hupingshanensis and C. circaeoides due to its pinnatifid leaves. Since we were not able to examine the voucher specimens of the C. lyrata sample (accession MZ846206), its identification remains doubtful in this study. Our phylogenetic results suggested that C. hupingshanensis, C. enshiensis and C. circaeoides may form a natural species complex with some other species complexes in the presence of simple cauline leaves that resemble basal leaves, and are rarely obscurely two- or three-lobed. Our results also indicated that together with the high-selenium-tolerance plant C. hupingshanensis, C. enshiensis and C. circaeoides could be used as ideal plants to study the genetic mechanisms of plant selenium tolerance.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we sequenced the cp genome of C. hupingshanensis and compared the genome with other 16 Cardamine species. The Cardamine cp genomes were found to be well-conserved in genome structure, size, and gene content. The whole cp genome of C. hupingshanensis is presented here with 155,226 bp sequence length. The size is within the range of all previously sequenced Cardamine genomes. The protein coding sequences based on the complete cp genome data produced highly resolved phylogeny with strong support in this taxonomically complex group. C. hupingshanensis was found to be closest with C. enshiensis and C. circaeoides with strong support, suggesting that these three species may form a natural species complex. The SSRs identified in this study have advantages in single-parent inheritance. They could be used as molecular markers in future genetic diversities analysis and species identification. Furthermore, five higher-variable regions were identified, which were suitable as molecular markers for Cardamine species identification. In summary, the results obtained in this study should provide valuable information for future studies of the genetic diversity and the evolutionary history of Cardamine. In addition, our results laid the foundation for the phylogenetic analysis of Cardamine and the precise determination of C. hupingshanensis, which should contribute to further studies on the mechanisms of selenium tolerance.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/genes13112116/s1, Table S1: Summary of all analyzed chloroplast genome Genbank accession numbers in Brassicaceae; Table S2: Summary of SSRs and tandem repeats numbers in all Cardamine species; Table S3: Simple sequence repeats (SSRs) in the cp genomes of Cardamine hupingshanensis.

Author Contributions

S.H. conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and tables, authored this paper, and approved the final draft; Z.K. and Z.C. performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft; Y.D. conceived and designed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, grant number XDA13020500 and the Forestry Ecological Protection, Restoration and Development Project financed by the Central Government of China, grant number 202209.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The chloroplast genome of Cardamine hupingshanensis has been deposited into the NCBI database with the accession number NC_065146. The raw genomic data have been deposited into the NCBI SRA database with the accession number PRJNA894376.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Fanzhang Du for his assistance in collecting the samples.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cheo, T.; Lou, L.; Yang, G.; Al-Shehbaz, I. Cardamine. In Flora of China; Science Press: St. Louis, MO, USA; Beijing & Missouri Botanical Garden Press: Beijing, China, 2001; Volume 8. [Google Scholar]
  2. Carlsen, T.; Bleeker, W.; Hurka, H.; Elven, R.; Brochmann, C. Biogeography and Phylogeny of Cardamine (Brassicaceae). Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 2009, 96, 215–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Al-Shehbaz, I.A. The genera of Arabideae (Cruciferae, Brassicaceae) in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arbor. 1988, 69, 85–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Al-Shehbaz, I.A.; Beilstein, M.A.; Kellogg, E.A. Systematics and phylogeny of the Brassicaceae (Cruciferae): An overview. Plant Syst. Evol. 2006, 259, 89–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Al-Shehbaz, I.A. A generic and tribal synopsis of the Brassicaceae (Cruciferae). Taxon 2012, 61, 931–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Al-Shehbaz, I.A. Brassicaceae. In Flora of Pan-Himalaya; Deng, Y., Ed.; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2015; pp. 1–594. [Google Scholar]
  7. Appel, O.; Al-Shehbaz, I.A. Cruciferae. In the Families and Genera of Vascular Plants; Kubitzki, K., Bayer, C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2002; Volume 5, pp. 75–170. [Google Scholar]
  8. Wu, L.; Liu, W.; Mu, C.; Al-Shehbaz, I.A. Cardamine hunanensis (Brassicaceae), a remarkable new species from Hunan (China) with fully bracteate racemes. Phytotaxa 2021, 512, 79–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Warwick, S.I.; Mummenhoff, K.; Sauder, C.A.; Koch, M.A.; Al-Shehbaz, I.A. Closing the gaps: Phylogenetic relationships in the Brassicaceae based on DNA sequence data of nuclear ribosomal ITS region. Plant Syst. Evol. 2010, 285, 209–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hu, S.; Sablok, G.; Wang, B.; Qu, D.; Barbaro, E.; Viola, R.; Li, M. Plastome organization and evolution of chloroplast genes in Cardamine species adapted to contrasting habitats. BMC Genom. 2015, 16, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Lihova, J.; Marhold, K. Worldwide phylogeny and biogeography of Cardamine flexuosa (Brassicaceae) and its relatives. Am. J. Bot. 2006, 93, 1206–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Marhold, K.; Lihova, J. Polyploidy, hybridization and reticulate evolution: Lessons from the Brassicaceae. Plant Syst. Evol. 2006, 259, 143–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bai, H. A New Species of Cardamine (Brassicaceae) from Hunan, China. Novon 2008, 18, 135–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, Y.; Chen, F.; Liang, H. Cardamine hupingshanensis K. M. Liu, L, B. Chen, H. F. Bai & L. H. Liu-A Newly Recorded Species in Hubei, China. Hubei Agric. Sci. 2010, 49, 2160–2161. [Google Scholar]
  15. Liu, T.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, B. Research status and prospect of Cardamine. Shaanxi J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 4, 127–129. [Google Scholar]
  16. Zhou, Y.; Tang, Q.; Wu, M.; Mou, D.; Liu, H.; Wang, S.; Zhang, C.; Ding, L.; Guo, J. Comparative transcriptomics provides novel insights into the mechanisms of selenium tolerance in the hyperaccumulator plant Cardamine hupingshanensis. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 2789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Pilon-Smits, E.; Colin, F. Selenium Metabolism in Plants. Int. Urogynecology J. 2016, 27, 225–241. [Google Scholar]
  18. Zhu, Y.; Pilon-Smits, E.; Zhao, F.; Williams, P.; Meharg, A. Selenium in higher plants: Understanding mechanisms for biofortification and phytoremediation. Trends Plant Sci. 2009, 14, 436–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Dobrogojski, J.; Adamiec, M.; Lucinski, R. The chloroplast genome: A review. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2020, 42, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Daniell, H.; Lin, C.; Yu, M.; Chang, W. Chloroplast genomes: Diversity, evolution and applications in genetic engineering. Genome Biol. 2016, 17, 2–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Sun, Y.; Zerges, W. Translational regulation in chloroplasts for development and homeostasis. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2015, 9, 809–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Kikuchi, S.; Asakura, Y.; Imai, M.; Nakahira, Y.; Kotani, Y.; Hashiguchi, Y.; Nakai, Y.; Takafuji, K.; Bedard, J.; Hirabayashi-Ishioka, Y.; et al. A Ycf2-FtsHi Heteromeric AAA-ATPase Complex Is Required for Chloroplast Protein Import. Plant Cell 2018, 30, 2677–2703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Huang, S.; Ge, X.; Cano, A.; Millan Salazar, B.G.; Deng, Y. Comparative analysis of chloroplast genomes for five Dicliptera species (Acanthaceae): Molecular structure, phylogenetic relationships, and adaptive evolution. Peerj 2020, 8, e8450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Liu, C.; Yang, J.; Jin, L.; Wang, S.; Yang, Z.; Ji, Y. Plastome phylogenomics of the East Asian endemic genus Dobinea. Plant Divers. 2021, 43, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Wei, F.; Tang, D.; Wei, K.; Qin, F.; Li, L.; Lin, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Khan, A.; Kashif, M.H.; Miao, J. The complete chloroplast genome sequence of the medicinal plant Sophora tonkinensis. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Zhang, F.; Wang, T.; Shu, X.; Wang, N.; Zhuang, W.; Wang, Z. Complete Chloroplast Genomes and Comparative Analyses of L. chinensis, L. anhuiensis, and L. aurea (Amaryllidaceae). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 5729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wu, H.; Ma, P.-F.; Li, H.-T.; Hu, G.-X.; Li, D.-Z. Comparative plastomic analysis and insights into the phylogeny of Salvia (Lamiaceae). Plant Divers. 2021, 43, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Mwanzia, V.M.; He, D.-X.; Gichira, A.W.; Li, Y.; Ngarega, B.K.; Karichu, M.J.; Kamau, P.W.; Li, Z.-Z. The complete plastome sequences of five Aponogeton species (Aponogetonaceae): Insights into the structural organization and mutational hotspots. Plant Divers. 2020, 42, 334–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Olmstead, R.G.; Palmer, J.D. Chloroplast DNA systematics: A review of methods and data analysis. Am. J. Bot. 1994, 81, 1205–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Weng, M.-L.; Blazier, J.C.; Govindu, M.; Jansen, R.K. Reconstruction of the ancestral plastid genome in Geraniaceae reveals a correlation between genome rearrangements, repeats, and nucleotide substitution rates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2013, 31, 645–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Wicke, S.; Schneeweiss, G.M.; 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] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Amor, M.D.; Johnson, J.C.; James, E.A. Identification of clonemates and genetic lineages using next-generation sequencing (ddRADseq) guides conservation of a rare species, Bossiaea vombata (Fabaceae). Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2020, 45, 125544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chang, A.C.G.; Lai, Q.; Chen, T.; Tu, T.; Wang, Y.; Agoo, E.M.G.; Duan, J.; Li, N. The complete chloroplast genome of Microcycas calocoma (Miq.) A. DC. (Zamiaceae, Cycadales) and evolution in Cycadales. Peerj 2020, 8, e8305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Gao, C.; Wang, J.; Deng, Y. The Complete Chloroplast Genomes of Echinacanthus Species (Acanthaceae): Phylogenetic Relationships, Adaptive Evolution, and Screening of Molecular Markers. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Guo, L.; Guo, S.; Xu, J.; He, L.; Carlson, J.E.; Hou, X. Phylogenetic analysis based on chloroplast genome uncover evolutionary relationship of all the nine species and six cultivars of tree peony. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 153, 112567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hishamuddin, M.S.; Lee, S.Y.; Ng, W.L.; Ramlee, S.I.; Lamasudin, D.U.; Mohamed, R. Comparison of eight complete chloroplast genomes of the endangered Aquilaria tree species (Thymelaeaceae) and their phylogenetic relationships. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 13034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Niu, E.; Jiang, C.; Wang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, S. Chloroplast Genome Variation and Evolutionary Analysis of Olea europaea L. Genes 2020, 11, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Doyle, J.J.; Doyle, J.L. A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochem Bull 1987, 19, 11–15. [Google Scholar]
  39. Jin, J.; Yu, W.; Yang, J.; Song, Y.; dePamphilis, C.; Yi, T.; Li, D. GetOrganelle: A fast and versatile toolkit for accurate de novo assembly of organelle genomes. Genome Biol. 2020, 21, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Qu, X.J.; Moore, M.J.; Li, D.Z.; Yi, T.S. PGA: A software package for rapid, accurate, and fexible batch annotation of plastomes. Plant Methods 2019, 15, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Kearse, M.; Moir, R.; Wilson, A.; Stones-Havas, S.; Cheung, M.; Sturrock, S.; Buxton, S.; Cooper, A.; Markowitz, S.; Duran, C. Geneious Basic: An integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics 2012, 28, 1647–1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Schattner, P.; Brooks, A.N.; Lowe, T.M. The tRNAscan-SE, snoscan and snoGPS web servers for the detection of tRNAs and snoRNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33, W686–W689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Lohse, M.; Drechsel, O.; Kahlau, S.; Bock, R. OrganellarGenomeDRAW—A suite of tools for generating physical maps of plastid and mitochondrial genomes and visualizing expression data sets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41, W575–W581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Sharp, P.M.; Li, W.-H. The codon adaptation index-a measure of directional synonymous codon usage bias, and its potential applications. Nucleic Acids Res. 1987, 15, 1281–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Frazer, K.A.; Pachter, L.; Poliakov, A.; Rubin, E.M.; Dubchak, I. VISTA: Computational tools for comparative genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 32, W273–W279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Librado, P.; Rozas, J. DnaSP v5: A software for comprehensive analysis of DNA polymorphism data. Bioinformatics 2009, 25, 1451–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Amiryousefi, A.; Hyvonen, J.; Poczai, P. IRscope: An online program to visualize the junction sites of chloroplast genomes. Bioinformatics 2018, 34, 3030–3031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Beier, S.; Thiel, T.; Münch, T.; Scholz, U.; Mascher, M. MISA-web: A web server for microsatellite prediction. Bioinformatics 2017, 33, 2583–2585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Kurtz, S.; Choudhuri, J.V.; Ohlebusch, E.; Schleiermacher, C.; Stoye, J.; Giegerich, R. REPuter: The manifold applications of repeat analysis on a genomic scale. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001, 29, 4633–4642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Benson, G. Tandem repeats finder: A program to analyze DNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 1999, 27, 573–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. 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]
  52. Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 1312–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Swofford, D. PAUP. In Phylogentic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods) Version 4; Sinauer Associates Press: Sunderland, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ronquist, F.; Huelsenbeck, J.P. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 2003, 19, 1572–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Meng, X.-X.; Xian, Y.-F.; Xiang, L.; Zhang, D.; Shi, Y.-H.; Wu, M.-L.; Dong, G.-Q.; Ip, S.-P.; Lin, Z.-X.; Wu, L. Complete Chloroplast Genomes from Sanguisorba: Identity and Variation Among Four Species. Molecules 2018, 23, 2137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Franzke, A.; Lysak, M.; Al-Shehbaz, I.; Koch, M.; Mummenhoff, K. Cabbage family affairs: The evolutionary history of Brassicaceae. Trends Plant Sci. 2011, 16, 108–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Hohmann, N.; Wolf, E.; Lysak, M.; Koch, M. A time-calibrated broad map of Brassicaceae species radiation and evolutionary history. Plant Cell 2015, 27, 2770–2784. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Huang, C.; Sun, R.; Hu, Y.; Zeng, L.; Zhang, N.; Cai, L.; Zhang, Q.; Koch, M.; Al-Shehbaz, I.; Edger, P.; et al. Resolution of Brassicaceae phylogeny using nuclear genes uncovers nested radiations and supports convergent morphological evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2015, 33, 394–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Nikolov, L.; Shushkov, P.; Nevado, B.; Gan, X.; Al-Shehbaz, I.; Filatov, D.; Bailey, C.; M, T. Resolving the backbone of the Brassicaceae phylogeny for investigating trait diversity. New Phytol. 2019, 222, 1638–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Walden, N.; German, D.; Wolf, E.; Kiefer, M.; Rigault, P.; Huang, X.; Kiefer, C.; Schmickl, R.; Franzke, A.; Neuffer, B.; et al. Nested whole-genome duplications coincide with diversification and high morphological disparity in Brassicaceae. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 3795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mader, M.; Pakull, B.; Blanc-Jolivet, C.; Paulini-Drewes, M.; Bouda, Z.H.-N.; Degen, B.; Small, I.; Kersten, B. Complete Chloroplast Genome Sequences of Four Meliaceae Species and Comparative Analyses. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Raubeson, L.A.; Peery, R.; Chumley, T.W.; Dziubek, C.; Fourcade, H.M.; Boore, J.L.; Jansen, R.K. Comparative chloroplast genomics: Analyses including new sequences from the angiosperms Nuphar advena and Ranunculus macranthus. Bmc Genom. 2007, 8, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Liu, L.M.; Du, X.Y.; Guo, C.; Li, D.Z. Resolving robust phylogenetic relationships of core Brassicaceae using genome skimming data. J. Syst. Evol. 2021, 59, 442–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. George, B.; Bhatt, B.S.; Awasthi, M.; George, B.; Singh, A.K. Comparative analysis of microsatellites in chloroplast genomes of lower and higher plants. Curr. Genet. 2015, 61, 665–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Jurka, J.; Pethiyagoda, C. Simple Repetitive DNA—Sequences from Primates—Compilation and Analysis. J. Mol. Evol. 1995, 40, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lu, L.; Li, X.; Hao, Z.; Yang, L.; Zhang, J.; Peng, Y.; Xu, H.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Shi, J.; et al. Phylogenetic studies and comparative chloroplast genome analyses elucidate the basal position of halophyte Nitraria sibirica (Nitrariaceae) in the Sapindales. Mitochondrial DNA Part A 2018, 29, 745–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Tautz, D.; Renz, M. Simple Sequences are Ubiquitous Repetitive Components of Eukaryotic Genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 1984, 12, 4127–4138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Bailey, C.D.; Koch, M.A.; Mayer, M.; Mummenhoff, K.; O’Kane, S.L., Jr.; Warwick, S.I.; Windham, M.D.; Al-Shehbaz, I.A. Toward a global phylogeny of the Brassicaceae. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2006, 23, 2142–2160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Detling, L.E. The genus Dentaria in the Pacific states. Am. J. Bot. 1936, 23, 570–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bush, N.A. Cardamine and Dentaria. In Flora of the U.S.S.R.; Plitma, U., Ed.; Keter Press: Jerusalem, Israel, 1939; Volume 8, pp. 110–129. [Google Scholar]
  71. Turrill, N.L.; Evans, D.K.; Gilliam, F.S. Identification of West Virginia members of the Dentaria complex [D. diphylla Michx., D. heterophylla Nutt., and D. laciniata Muhl. ex Willd.(Brassicaceae)] using above-ground vegetative characters. Castanea 1994, 59, 22–30. [Google Scholar]
  72. Crantz, H.J.N. Classis Cruicifornium Emendata; Ioannis Pauli Kraus: Leipzig, Germany, 1769. [Google Scholar]
  73. Schulz, O.E. Monographie der Gattung Cardamine. Bot. Jahrbücher Syst. Pflanzengesch. Pflanzengeogr. 1903, 32, 280–623. [Google Scholar]
  74. Schulz, O.E. Cruciferae. In Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien; Engler, A., Harms, H., Eds.; Engelmann: Leipzig, Germany, 1936. [Google Scholar]
  75. Jones, B.M.G. Cardamine. Flora Eur. 1964, 1, 285–289. [Google Scholar]
  76. Oi, J. Flora of Japan; Smithsonian Institution: Washington, DC, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  77. Cheo, T.Y. Cardamine. In Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinica; Science Press: Beijing, China, 1987; Volume 33. [Google Scholar]
  78. Jones, B.M.G.; Akeroyd, J.R. Cardamine. In Flora Europaea, 2nd ed.; Tutin, T.G., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  79. Rollins, R.C. The Cruciferae of Continiental North America; Standford University Press: Redwood City, CA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  80. Sweeney, P.W.; Price, R.A. Polyphyly of the genus Dentaria (Brassicaceae): Evidence from trnL intron and ndhF sequence data. Syst. Bot. 2000, 25, 468–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rashid, A.; Ohba, H. A revision of Cardamine loxostemonoides OE Schulz (Cruciferae). J. Jap. Bot. 1993, 68, 199–208. [Google Scholar]
  82. Franzke, A.; Pollmann, K.; Bleeker, W.; Kohrt, R.; Hurka, H. Molecular systematics ofCardamine and allied genera (Brassicaceae): Its and non-coding chloroplast DNA. Folia Geobot. 1998, 33, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bleeker, W.; Franzke, A.; Pollmann, K.; Brown, A.; Hurka, H. Phylogeny and biogeography of Southern Hemisphere high-mountain Cardamine species (Brassicaceae). Aust. Syst. Bot. 2002, 15, 575–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Gao, Q.-B.; Li, Y.; Gengji, Z.-M.; Gornall, R.J.; Wang, J.-L.; Liu, H.-R.; Jia, L.-K.; Chen, S.-L. Population Genetic Differentiation and Taxonomy of Three Closely Related Species of Saxifraga (Saxifragaceae) from Southern Tibet and the Hengduan Mountins. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Bai, H.-R.; Oyebanji, O.; Zhang, R.; Yi, T.-S. Plastid phylogenomic insights into the evolution of subfamily Dialioideae (Leguminosae). Plant Divers. 2021, 43, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wang, Y.B.; Chen, F.J.; Liang, H.W. Cardamine hupingshanensis, a new recorded species of Cardamine from Hubei. Hubei Agric. Sci. 2010, 49, 2160–2161. [Google Scholar]
Genes 13 02116 g001 550
Figure 1. Gene maps of chloroplast genomes of Cardamine hupingshanensis. The colored bars indicate known protein-coding genes, tRNA and rRNA. The dark gray area in the inner circle indicates GC content, while the light gray area indicates AT content. LSC, large single copy; SSC, small single copy; IR, inverted repeats.
Figure 1. Gene maps of chloroplast genomes of Cardamine hupingshanensis. The colored bars indicate known protein-coding genes, tRNA and rRNA. The dark gray area in the inner circle indicates GC content, while the light gray area indicates AT content. LSC, large single copy; SSC, small single copy; IR, inverted repeats.
Genes 13 02116 g001
Genes 13 02116 g002 550
Figure 2. Sequence identity plots of 187 Cardamine species using mVISTA. Sequence variations among 17 Cardamine species using C. hupingshanensis as base reference. Regions in pink indicate conserved non-coding sequences, purple are conserved exons, and white-colored regions identify more variable sites. The Y-axis represents percent identity ranging from 50% to 100%. IR junctions are indicated in parentheses to show LSC, SSC and IR regions.
Figure 2. Sequence identity plots of 187 Cardamine species using mVISTA. Sequence variations among 17 Cardamine species using C. hupingshanensis as base reference. Regions in pink indicate conserved non-coding sequences, purple are conserved exons, and white-colored regions identify more variable sites. The Y-axis represents percent identity ranging from 50% to 100%. IR junctions are indicated in parentheses to show LSC, SSC and IR regions.
Genes 13 02116 g002
Genes 13 02116 g003 550
Figure 3. Comparative analysis of the nucleotide diversity (Pi) value among 17 Cardamine chloroplast genes. (A) Coding regions. (B) Non-coding regions.
Figure 3. Comparative analysis of the nucleotide diversity (Pi) value among 17 Cardamine chloroplast genes. (A) Coding regions. (B) Non-coding regions.
Genes 13 02116 g003
Genes 13 02116 g004 550
Figure 4. Comparison of the LSC/IRa/SSC/IRb junction among the chloroplast genomes of 17 Cardamine species. Colored boxes represent the adjacent border genes. Number above the gene indicates the distance in bp between the ends of genes and the junction sites. The features are not in scale.
Figure 4. Comparison of the LSC/IRa/SSC/IRb junction among the chloroplast genomes of 17 Cardamine species. Colored boxes represent the adjacent border genes. Number above the gene indicates the distance in bp between the ends of genes and the junction sites. The features are not in scale.
Genes 13 02116 g004
Genes 13 02116 g005 550
Figure 5. Long repeat and simple sequence repeat (SSR) types and distributions of C. hupingshanensis and other species in Cardamine. (A) Percentage of different SSR types in C. hupingshanensis; (B) number of SSR types in Cardamine; (C) number of different long repeat lengths in C. hupingshanensis; (D) percentage of five long repeat types in C. hupingshanensis.
Figure 5. Long repeat and simple sequence repeat (SSR) types and distributions of C. hupingshanensis and other species in Cardamine. (A) Percentage of different SSR types in C. hupingshanensis; (B) number of SSR types in Cardamine; (C) number of different long repeat lengths in C. hupingshanensis; (D) percentage of five long repeat types in C. hupingshanensis.
Genes 13 02116 g005
Genes 13 02116 g006 550
Figure 6. The maximum likelihood (ML) tree of Brassicaceae. Numbers associated with branches are ML bootstrap values, MP bootstrap values and Bayesian posterior probabilities, respectively. Hyphens indicate the bootstrap support or posterior probability lower than 50% or 0.5. Tarenaya hassleriana (KX886354) and Capparis versicolor (MH142726) were used as outgroups.
Figure 6. The maximum likelihood (ML) tree of Brassicaceae. Numbers associated with branches are ML bootstrap values, MP bootstrap values and Bayesian posterior probabilities, respectively. Hyphens indicate the bootstrap support or posterior probability lower than 50% or 0.5. Tarenaya hassleriana (KX886354) and Capparis versicolor (MH142726) were used as outgroups.
Genes 13 02116 g006
Table
Table 1. Summary of eighteen Cardamine chloroplast genome features.
Table 1. Summary of eighteen Cardamine chloroplast genome features.
Species NameAccession NumberGenome Size (bp)LSC (bp)SSC (bp)IR (bp)CDS LengthGC Content
Cardamine hupingshanensisNC_065146155,22684,28717,94326,49878,09936.31%
Cardamine macrophyllaMF405340155,39384,47817,95726,47979,41036.35%
Cardamine bulbiferaNC_049603155,29584,47317,85826,48279,14636.39%
Cardamine glanduligeraMK637680153,82883,12417,71626,49479,17936.43%
Cardamine hirsutaMK637681153,93483,22817,78226,46279,00236.41%
Cardamine kitaibeliiMK637684155,16084,23817,88626,51878,75936.36%
Cardamine pentaphyllosMK637691155,56084,57317,93526,52678,93336.35%
Cardamine quinquefoliaNC_049620155,00984,18817,85326,48479,16436.39%
Cardamine amariformisMZ043776155,59884,57517,97526,52479,05636.34%
Cardamine occultaMZ043777154,79683,83617,93626,51279,49736.33%
Cardamine fallaxMZ043778154,79783,81717,93826,52179,41036.32%
Cardamine impatiensNC_026445155,61184,69617,94926,48379,39536.33%
Cardamine resedifoliaNC_026446155,03684,15117,86726,50979,51836.30%
Cardamine amaraNC_036962154,56184,28117,70626,28778,48836.40%
Cardamine oligospermaNC_036963153,88883,19417,76826,46379,21936.41%
Cardamine parvifloraNC_036964154,68483,93417,73226,50979,62136.36%
Cardamine enneaphyllosNC_049605155,22184,19518,00226,51273,79436.28%
Table
Table 2. List of genes encoded by the chloroplast genome of Cardamine hupingshanensis.
Table 2. List of genes encoded by the chloroplast genome of Cardamine hupingshanensis.
CategoryGene GroupsName of Genes
Self-replication (60 unique genes)Large subunit of ribosomal proteinsrpl2×2, rpl14, rpl16, rpl20, rpl22, rpl23×2, rpl32, rpl33, rpl36
Small subunit of ribosomal porteinsrps2, rps3, rps4, rps7×2, rps8, rps11, rps12, rps14, rps15, rps16, rps18, rps19
RNA polymeraserpoA, rpoB, rpoC1, rpoC2
Ribosomal RNA generrn4.5×2, rrn5×2, rrn16×2, rrn23×2
Transfer RNA genestrnA-UGC×2, trnC-GCA, trnD-GUC, trnE-UUC, trnF-GAA, trnfM-CAU, trnG-GCC, trnG-UCC, trnH-GUG, trnI-CAU×2, trnI-GAU×2, trnK-UUU, trnL-CAA×2, trnL-UAA, trnL-UAG, trnM-CAU, trnN-GUU×2, trnP-UGG, trnQ-UUG, trnR-ACG×2, trnR-UCU, trnS-GCU, trnS-GGA, trnS-UGA, trnT-GGU, trnT-UGU, trnV-GAC×2, trnV-UAC, trnW-CCA, trnY-GUA
Translational initiation factorinfA
Photosynthesis (57 unique genes)Subunits of ATP synthaseatpA, atpB, atpE, atpF, atpH, atpI
Subunits of Photosystem ⅠpsaA, psaB, psaC, psaI, psaJ, ycf3, ycf4
Subunits of Photosystem ⅡpsbA, psbB, psbC, psbD, psbE, psbF, psbH, psbI, psbJ, psbK, psbL, psbM, psbN, psbT, psbZ
Subunits of cytochrome b/f complexpetA, petB, petD, petG, petL, petN
Subunits of rubiscorbcL
Subunits of NADH-dehydrogenasendhA, ndhB×2, ndhC, ndhD, ndhE, ndhF, ndhG, ndhH, ndhI, ndhJ, ndhK
Other genes (8 unique genes)Subunit of acetyl-CoAcarboxylaseaccD
C-type cytochorome synthesis geneccsA
Envelope membrane proteincemA
ATP-dependent ProteaseclpP
Maturase KmatK
Component of TIC complexycf1
Genes of unknown functionycf2×2, ycf15×2
Table
Table 3. Codon usage table of Cardamine hupingshanensis.
Table 3. Codon usage table of Cardamine hupingshanensis.
Amino Acid CodonNo.RSCUProportiontRNA
Phe1561UUU10541.356.00%
UUC5070.65 trnF-GAA
Leu2768UUA9352.0310.63%trnL-UAA
UUG5211.13 trnL-CAA
CUU5821.26
CUC1780.39
CUA3860.84 trnL-UAG
CUG1660.36
Ile2260AUU11291.58.68%
AUC4110.55 trnI-GAU
AUA7200.96
Met594AUG59412.28%trnfM-CAU, trnI-CAU, trnM-CAU
Val1387GUU5171.495.33%
GUC1780.51 trnV-GAC
GUA4891.41 trnV-UAC
GUG2030.59
Ser2016UCU5661.687.74%
UCC3030.9 trnS-GGA
UCA4201.25 trnS-UGA
UCG2020.6
AGU4021.2
AGC1230.37 trnS-GCU
Pro1034CCU4191.623.97%
CCC1900.74
CCA2921.13 trnP-UGG
CCG1330.51
Thr1328ACU5441.645.10%
ACC2300.69 trnT-GGU
ACA4191.26 trnT-UGU
ACG1350.41
Ala1374GCU6371.855.28%
GCC2160.63
GCA3721.08 trnA-UGC
GCG1490.43
Tyr957UAU7851.643.68%
UAC1720.36 trnY-GUA
His605CAU4581.512.32%
CAC1470.49 trnH-GUG
Gln921CAA7201.563.54%trnQ-UUG
CAG2010.44
Asn1257AAU9621.534.83%
AAC2950.47 trnN-GUU
Lys1479AAA11391.545.68%trnK-UUU
AAG3400.46
Asp1034GAU8401.623.97%
GAC1940.38 trnD-GUC
Glu1351GAA10281.525.19%trnE-UUC
GAG3230.48
Cys310UGU2341.511.19%
UGC760.49 trnC-GCA
Trp448UGG44811.72%trnW-CCA
Arg1536CGU3391.325.90%trnR-ACG
CGC1060.41
CGA3501.37
CGG1180.46
AGA4661.82 trnR-UCU
AGG1570.61
Gly1730GGU5711.326.65%
GGC1630.38 trnG-GCC
GGA7211.67 trnG-UCC
GGG2750.64
Table
Table 4. The polymorphic SSRs among 17 Cardamine species.
Table 4. The polymorphic SSRs among 17 Cardamine species.
SSRC. hupingshanensis/C. gladuligera/C. bulbifera /C. macrophylla/C. parviflora/C. oligosperma/C. amara/C. resedifolia/C. quinquefolia/C. impatiens/C. kitaibelii/C. pentaphyllos/C. hirsuta/C. amariformis/C. occulta/C. fallaxLocationRegions Pi
T10/11/10/12/12/10/12/12/12/-/12/12/12/12/12matKLSC0.01642
A20/-/12/-/16/12/10/10/11/10/10/15/13/17/13trnK-UUU--rps16LSC0.00639
TA10/12/10/12/10/-/10/12/12/-/-/10/6/7/7rps16--trnQ-UUGLSC0.03666
T14/-/13/11/-/13/11/-/-/18/21/-/12/11/11trnR-UCU--atpALSC0.00000
T11/11/11/11/11/11/12/11/11/11/11/11/11/11/11rpoC2LSC0.00000
T10/13/12/16/-/11/13/14/14/-/-/-/14/16/16rpoC1 intronLSC0.01720
T12/11/15/15/12/10/10/-/15/15/15/12/15/18/19trnE-UUC--trnT-GGULSC0.03642
AT20/20/24/18/12/14/10/18/16/10/14/12/8/10/10trnE-UUC--trnT-GGULSC0.03642
A17/10/-/-/-/14/14/10/13/10/10/12/-/-/10trnT-GGU-psbDLSC0.00000
A12/11/11/-/16/11/14/11/11/14/14/18/-/-/-psbZ-trnG-UCCLSC0.03965
T11/16/13/17/16/15/11/15/16/16/16/15/15/15/15psaA-ycf3LSC0.02436
A11/11/12/11/-/14/14/11/12/16/21/-/-/16/15psaA-ycf3LSC0.02436
T10/-/-/14/-/-/-/10/12/11/11/-/14/14/14trnM-CAU-atpELSC0.00000
T10/10/10/-/10/13/10/12/12/11/11/11/-/10/10atpB-rbcLLSC0.01690
T10/10/10/-/-/-/11/10/-/12/12/-/10/10/10rbcL-accDLSC0.02311
T10/10/10/10/-/10/10/10/10/12/12/-/10/10/10accDLSC0.01055
T10/11/10/10/10/17/10/13/-/10/10/-/11/10/10clpP intronLSC0.01235
T13/13/13/13/13/13/13/13/13/12/17/13/13/13/13rpoALSC0.02929
T13/10/-/-/-/10/13/10/10/11/11/-/10/14/15rpl16 intronLSC0.02311
T10/19/14/14/10/-/12/15/14/15/14/10/-/-/-rps12-trnV-GACIR0.00572
AT16/-/-/-/12/12/10/-/-/-/-/12/8/8/8trnR-ACG-trnN-GUUIR0.00000
T12/-/15/-/11/13/-/11/-/11/11/-/11/-/-ndhF-rpl32SSC0.03768
A13/10/14/14/-/13/10/11/12/12/18/-/13/-/14ccsA-ndhDSSC0.03162
T12/12/12/13/11/12/12/12/12/12/12/11/12/10/10ycf1IR0.00635
AT16/12/14/-/12/12/10/12/16/-/-/12/10/8/8trnN-GUU-trnR-ACGIR0.00000
A10/19/14/15/10/-/12/15/14/15/14/10/-/-/-trnV-GAC-rps7IR0.00000
LSC, large single copy; IR, inverted repeat; SSC, small single copy.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Huang, S.; Kang, Z.; Chen, Z.; Deng, Y. Comparative Analysis of the Chloroplast Genome of Cardamine hupingshanensis and Phylogenetic Study of Cardamine. Genes 2022, 13, 2116. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13112116

AMA Style

Huang S, Kang Z, Chen Z, Deng Y. Comparative Analysis of the Chloroplast Genome of Cardamine hupingshanensis and Phylogenetic Study of Cardamine. Genes. 2022; 13(11):2116. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13112116

Chicago/Turabian Style

Huang, Sunan, Zujie Kang, Zhenfa Chen, and Yunfei Deng. 2022. "Comparative Analysis of the Chloroplast Genome of Cardamine hupingshanensis and Phylogenetic Study of Cardamine" Genes 13, no. 11: 2116. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes13112116

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