Next Article in Journal
Assessing the Flowering Genetic Regulatory Network in Neotropical Orchids
Previous Article in Journal
Physiological Characteristics of Expanding and Expanded Leaves of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Assyrtiko in Climate Change Conditions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology and Life Sciences Forum
Volume 4
Issue 1
10.3390/IECPS2020-08620
blsf-logo
Submit to this Journal
► 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:
Proceeding Paper

DNA Barcoding and Phylogenetic Placement of the Genus Euphorbia L. (Euphorbiaceae) in Egypt  †

by
Ahmed El-Banhawy
1,*,
Deniz Aygören Uluer
2,*,
Abdel Aziz Fayed
3,
Mona Mohamed
3 and
Ahmed Faried
3,4
1
Botany and Microbiology Department, Faculty of Science, Suez Canal University, Ismailia 41522, Egypt
2
Department of Plant and Animal Production, Cicekdagi Vocational College, Ahi Evran University, Kirsehir 40100, Turkey
3
Botany and Microbiology Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut 71515, Egypt
4
Biology Department, College of Science and Arts, Sajir, Shaqra University, Shaqraa 11961, Saudi Arabia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Presented at the 1st International Electronic Conference on Plant Science, 1–15 December 2020; Available online: https://iecps2020.sciforum.net/.
Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2021, 4(1), 58; https://doi.org/10.3390/IECPS2020-08620
Published: 30 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Proceedings of The 1st International Electronic Conference on Plant Science)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: The genus Euphorbia L. in Egypt is represented by 40 species, one subspecies, and three varieties which are distributed in almost all phytogeographical regions in Egypt. The genus is well known for its medicinal importance; however, various and sometimes anomalous morphological characters make the identification of the genus a problematic case. (2) Methods: In this study, six DNA markers: matK, rbcL, ETS, trnL intron, trnL spacer, and the entire ITS region (ITS1 + 5.8S + ITS2), as well as subunits ITS1 and ITS2 were evaluated singly and in combination to investigate their usage as potential DNA barcodes. The Maximum Likelihood (ML) and BLASTn analyses were conducted for 37 individuals representing 26 species of Egyptian Euphorbia. (3) Results: The BLASTn comparison of the newly generated DNA sequences of the Egyptian Euphorbia species showed that ITS, ITS1 and ITS2 subunits displayed high levels of species discrimination. On the other hand, the ML analysis of the DNA sequences of trnL intron yielded a better resolved phylogenetic tree than the other regions. However, our phylogenetic analysis based on DNA sequences of other markers: matK, rbcL, trnL, and the entire ITS region, with additional sequences from GenBank have shown that E. dracunculoides, E. hyssopifolia, E. lasiocarpa and E. granulata are probably not monophyletic. (4) Conclusion: This study, along with the broadest taxon coverage in Egypt, emphasizes the importance of using DNA markers for precise identification and phylogenetic placement of the genus Euphorbia in Egypt within the whole genus.

1. Introduction

Genus Euphorbia L. is one of the largest angiosperm genera of Euphorbiaceae; it includes around 2200 species and has a cosmopolitan distribution [1,2]. Despite its great vegetative diversity, Euphorbia is morphologically characterized by having a highly reduced cyathiate inflorescence [3]. Based on its phytogeographical distribution, plant habit, leaf morphology and venation patterns, stipules characters, inflorescences branching, and seed characters, Euphorbia has been divided into four subgenera: Euphorbia subgenus Esula Pers., E. subgenus Athymalus Neck. ex Rchb. Wheeler, E. subgenus Chamaesyce Raf., and E. subgenus Euphorbia [1,3,4,5,6]. On the other hand, in Egypt, the genus Euphorbia is represented by 40 species, one subspecies, and three varieties and is considered as one of the largest genera in the Egyptian flora [7]. It is distributed in all phytogeographical areas of the country with different habits and habitats [8].
DNA barcoding is a novel, cost-effective and rapid taxonomic method to identify organisms by using short-standardized gene region(s), where morphological identification is challenging or not possible due to the condition of plant material [9]. In this study, we explored the utility of DNA barcoding of Egyptian Euphorbia, because various and sometimes anomalous morphological characters make the identification of the genus a problematic case. Therefore, six DNA markers: matK, rbcL, ETS, trnL intron, trnL spacer, the entire ITS region (ITS1 + 5.8S + ITS2), as well as subunits ITS1 and ITS2 were evaluated singly and in combination to investigate their usage as potential DNA barcodes.

2. Experiments

2.1. Taxon Sampling, DNA Extraction, Amplification and Sequencing

All specimens collected from different phytogeographical regions in Egypt. identifications were based on the reproductive and vegetative characters by using the available textbooks of Flora of Egypt [7,8]. All voucher samples were curated in the Assuit University Herbarium (ASTU). Identification was confirmed through a comparative examination of herbarium specimens located in different Egyptian herbaria such as Cairo University Herbarium (CAI), Suez Canal University Herbarium (SCUH), Assuit University Herbarium (ASTU), Agricultural Research Centre Herbarium (CAIM) as well as the National Research Centre Herbarium (CAIRC). Herbaria acronyms followed [10]. Specimens of other species of the genus Euphorbia native to different geographical regions of the world at the University of Florida Herbarium (FLAS) were examined to broaden taxon sampling. Additional DNA samples were extracted, and more DNA sequences were generated to enhance the phylogenetic analysis.
The genomic DNA was extracted from fresh material using the Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) protocol. The PCR amplification was performed in 15 μL volume containing 5 U/μL Taq DNA polymerase with 25 μM MgCl2, 10 μM of dNTPs, 10 μM of each primer. For the PCR profiles and primers, we followed [11] for the ETS region; [12] for the ITS region; [13] for the matK region; [14] for the rbcL region; and [15] for the trnL-F region. Amplifications were conducted using an Applied Biosystems®-VeritiTM 96- well thermal cycler. PCR products were sent to Eurofins Genomics, USA for purification and direct sequencing in both directions.

2.2. Sequence Editing, Alignment and Phylogenetic Analyses

Sequences were assembled and aligned using the Geneious alignment option in Geneious Pro 4.8.4 [16] and edited manually. All indels were scored as missing data. ITS1 (362 bp) and ITS2 (301 bp) regions were extracted from the entire ITS alignments to see whether these regions alone will enhance the analysis rather than the entire ITS region. We chose 20 outgroups taxa following [17].
Including outgroups and GenBank sequences, 11 data matrices were generated as following: matK data matrix comprised 42 accessions, the rbcL data matrix comprised 98 accessions, the trnL intron data matrix contained 78 DNA sequences, the trnL-F intergenic spacer data matrix contained 89 sequences, the ETS data matrix contained 23 sequences, the entire ITS data matrix contained 131 sequences, the ITS1 data matrix contained 124 sequences, the ITS2 data matrix contained 127 sequences, and the ITS + rbcL + matK + trnL intron + trnL-F spacer data matrix contained 147 sequences (Table 1). For the phylogeny and Basic Local Alignment Search Tools nucleotide (BLASTn) analyses, the individual matrixwas concatenated using the ‘concatenate’ option in Geneious Pro 4.8.4 [16]. The alignment details for the data matrices are provided in Table 1.
The substitution models for each individual gene were estimated using ModelFinder [18] implemented in IQ-TREE v.2.0 [19].
Eleven ML analyses were performed using RAxML version 8.2.12 [20] as implemented on CIPRES portal [21] (http://www.phylo.org/, accessed on 4 November 2020). Outgroups and partitions were defined for each dataset. Since RAxML does not support the best models for our datasets, we specified the GTR GAMMA model for each dataset. “Let RAxML halt bootstrapping automatically” option and wa applied to each partition individually. Default maximum likelihood search options were selected.
The best scoring trees with bootstrap values (BS) were saved. We used a cutoff of 50% to define support for “successful” resolution of monophyletic taxa.
For the total evidence, plastid and nuclear data matrices, Bayesian analyses were conducted using MrBayes 3.1.2 [22] as implemented on the CIPRES portal [21] (http://www.phylo.org/, accessed on 7 November 2020). MrBayes was run with four (one cold and three heated) Monte Carlo Markov chains (MCMC) and for ten million generations, sampling one tree in every 100 generations. The analysis repeated twice as independent runs, and the resulting parameter files were jointly visualized in Tracer [23]. Among the 100,000 trees obtained, the first 25,000 trees were discarded as “burn-in”, and a maximum credibility tree and associated posterior probabilities (PP) were compiled using the remaining trees. The total evidence tree was visualized using the Interactive Tree of Life (iTOL) online tool (https://itol.embl.de/, accessed on 9 November 2020) [24].

2.3. BLAST Analysis

All DNA regions were tested singly and in combination by running a BLASTn search in GenBank (Table 2). In addition to the 11 datasets used in the ML analyses, we created 10 more datasets by concatenating individual datasets, and these were matK+ ITS1, matK+ ITS2, ITS1 + trnL intron, ITS1 + trnL-F spacer, ITS2 + trnL intron, ITS2 + trnL-F spacer, trnL intron + trnL-F spacer, ITS + trnL intron, ITS + trnL-F spacer, ITS + trnL intron + trnL-F spacer and ITS + matK + rbcL + trnL intron + trnL-F spacer. However, since these analyses did not yield better results than the individual DNA barcodes, we did not include them in Table 2.
We used a cutoff of 90% species identity for the BLASTn similarity approach. Additionally, we ‘BLASTed’ our sequences to see whether the first hit on the BLASTn results represented the correct identification [25].

3. Results

In total, 14 new matK, 22 rbcL, 19 ETS, 17 trnL intron, 24 trnL spacer and 24 ITS (ITS1 + 5.8S + ITS2) sequences, representing 23 Egyptian Euphorbia species were generated for the current study (Table 1). The alignment of matK was 1117 bp long, rbcL was 552 bp long, trnL intron was 870 bp long, trnL-F spacer was 483 bp long, the entire ITS was 875 bp long, ITS1 was 362 bp long, ITS2 was 244 bp long, ETS was 504 bp long, and the alignment of ITS + ETS + rbcL + matK + trnL intron + trnL-F spacer was 4370 bp long.
In terms of parsimony-informative characters, compared to their lengths, ITS1 and ITS2 showed the highest percentage (69% and 69.8%, respectively), followed by the entire ITS (55.5%), trnL-F spacer (37%) and trnL intron (31.5%). However, in terms of PCR and sequencing success, trnL-F spacer showed the highest PCR and sequencing success, followed by rbcL and ITS, respectively (Table 1). matK and trnL intron showed the lowest PCR and sequencing success. In terms of primer pairs used, while the matK and the ITS regions required two primers, others required only one pair of primers. Except for the matK, trnL intron and the entire ITS regions, the length of all regions is well suited for DNA barcoding (less than ~550 bp). On the other hand, in terms of alignment, in contrast to the rbcL, matK and the trnL-F spacer; the entire ITS (namely, ITS1 and ITS2 subunits) and the trnL intron regions were challenging to align.
In terms of BLASTn and “first hit” BLASTn searches, ITS1, ITS2 and the entire ITS were the most successful DNA barcodes for the Egyptian Euphorbia (Table 2). Furthermore, both ITS1 and ITS2 were particularly successful in “first hit” BLASTn searches. Combining individual datasets did not improve neither the BLASTn search results nor the “first hit” BLASTn search results (results not shown). Similarly, ETS nuclear region did not give any correct results in BLASTn and “first hit” BLASTn searches. Among the Euphorbia sequences, while E. paralias, E. helioscopia, E. hirta, E. hyssopifolia, E. prostrata and E. heterophylla always yielded correct identification for all DNA regions in the BLASTn searches (please note that only E. paralias and E. heterophylla were always correctly identified in the “first hit”); E. grossheimii (E. isthmia), E. falcata, E. chamaepeplus and E. forsskalii never yielded correct identifications (Table 2).
Our ML results have showed that in terms of retrieving monophyletic species, trnL intron was the most successful DNA region, followed by the entire ITS, trnL-F spacer, ITS1 and ITS2, respectively (Table 2). Both the matK and the rbcL regions yielded the lowest number of monophyletic species. Similar to the BLASTn search results, combining all regions (ITS + ETS + matK + rbcL + trnL intron + trnL-F spacer and 17 more combinations) did not resulted in better resolution (Table 2).
In terms of phylogenetic analyses, the GTR + G + I substitution model of molecular evolution was selected for the entire ITS region, the TIM3e + R4 model was selected for the matK and the ITS1 region, the SYM + I + G4 model was selected for the ITS2 region, the K3Pu + F + R2 model was selected for the rbcL region, the TIM2 + F + R3 model was selected for the trnL intron, and the GTR + F + R5 model was selected for the trnL-F spacer. The genus Euphorbia was monophyletic in only five of the analyses (Table 2). While E. terracina (93–100% BS), E. nubica (E. consobrina) (94–100% BS), E. hierosolymitana (94–100% BS), E. pterococca (98–100% BS), E. cuneata (100% BS), E. serpens (63–100% BS) and E. heterophylla (97–100% BS) were monophyletic in all analyses, E. dracunculoides, E. hyssopifolia, E. lasiocarpa and E. granulata var. granulata were not monophyletic in any of the analyses (Table 2).

4. Discussion

Identification of morphologically challenging Egyptian Euphorbia using DNA barcodes would be convenient. However, our analyses have shown that the genus is a problematic DNA barcoding case, and species borders of some taxa within the genus are not clear (Table 2). While the rbcL + matK combination has been adopted as a standard DNA barcode for plants [14], to date, several studies have shown that this standard combination does not apply to many plant groups [26]. Furthermore, while amplification and universal primer problems have been reported for the plastid matK region [27], low discrimination power has been reported for the rbcL region [28]. Indeed, our results have shown that both the amplification and sequencing success were low for the matK region; however, in terms of primer pairs used, both the matK and the entire ITS regions required two pairs of primers.
On the other hand, the rbcL region yielded lower parsimony-informative characters than the other regions (Table 1). Furthermore, excepting the nuclear ETS region, the rbcL region was the least successful locus in our “BLASTn first hit” searches “the BLASTn searches, the rbcL region was not significantly different from the matK, trnL intron and trnL-F intergenic spacer results” (Table 2). Therefore, sequencing the standard DNA barcode combination, namely rbcL + matK would be time and resource waste for the Egyptian Euphorbia.
Our results have shown that, in terms of BLASTn species discrimination, the ITS1 subunit was the most successful DNA barcode, followed by ITS2 and the entire ITS (Table 2). Furthermore, ITS1 and ITS2 subunits were particularly advantageous in the “first hit” BLASTn searches. However, in terms of retrieving monophyletic species in our ML analyses, the ITS1 and ITS2 subunits were not as helpful as the trnL intron and the entire ITS region (Table 2).
Similar to the entire ITS region, the two components of the ITS region (i.e., ITS1 and ITS2) have been widely used in low-level plant systematic studies (i.e., genus and species level) due to their high nucleotide substitution rates. Furthermore, to date, several studies have shown that if there is an amplification or sequencing problem with the entire ITS region (e.g., requiring specific primers, PCR conditions and PCR additives, low PCR efficiency and difficulties in sequence recovery and alignment, particularly with degraded material), employing the ITS1 or ITS2 subunits as DNA barcodes are very practical, due to the existence of universal primers (i.e., has relatively conserved flanking regions), their short length, ease of amplification and sequencing even with highly degraded material (e.g., herbal medicine ingredients, museum and herbarium samples) [29,30,31]. On the other hand, several undesired qualifications, such as, possibility of fungal contamination, gene conversions, the presence of paralogous gene copies (i.e., incomplete lineage sorting) and cloning requirement in some cases, pseudogenes, recombination among copies, containing many indels (insertion-deletions) [29,32,33,34,35,36,37] were reported not only for the entire ITS but also for the ITS1 and ITS2 subunits. While our ITS sequences did not show double peaks in the chromatograms; yet, cloning may be required for other taxa, which could not be sequenced for the current study.
The trnL intron and the trnL-F intergenic spacer have also been frequently used in generic and infraspecific molecular taxonomy studies. In our ML analyses, trnL intron was the most successful DNA locus in retrieving monophyletic species, followed by trnL-F intergenic spacer and ITS (equally), and ITS1 (Table 2). Furthermore, both the trnL intron and the trnL-F intergenic spacer have advantages concerning length (i.e., relatively short as a DNA barcode) and were easy to amplify and sequence with only one pair of primers; however, the percentage of the parsimony-informative characters of the trnL intron and trnL-F intergenic spacer was much less than the ITS, ITS1 and ITS2 regions (Table 1), and in both the BLASTn and “first hit” BLASTn searches, these regions were not as successful as the ITS, ITS1 and ITS2 regions.

5. Conclusions

While in our BLASTn analyses, ITS, ITS1 and ITS2 subunits displayed high levels of species discrimination, in our ML analyses, trnL intron yielded a better resolved phylogenetic tree compared to the other regions. However, the unsatisfactory results of the trnL intron in the BLASTn analyses were noteworthy. Therefore, if there is not a complex evolutionary history, such as paralogous sequences as a result of gene duplication and incomplete concerted evolution (i.e., cloning requirement). The current study recommend using at least the ITS1, ITS2 or ITS regions as a DNA barcode for the Egyptian Euphorbia. Notably, in the case of degraded material and/or sequencing and/or amplification problems, ITS1 and ITS2 subunits could be better options.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization A.E.-B., A.A.F. and A.F.; methodology, A.E.-B. and D.A.U., software, A.E.-B. and D.A.U.; formal analysis, A.E.-B., D.A.U. and A.F.; data curation, A.E.-B., D.A.U. and M.M.; investigation, A.E.-B., D.A.U., A.A.F., M.M. and A.F.; resources, A.E.-B., A.A.F., A.F. and M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.E.-B., D.A.U. and A.F.; writing—review and editing, A.E.-B., D.A.U., A.A.F. and A.F.; funding acquisition, A.E.-B. and M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bruyns, P.V.; Mapaya, R.J.; Hedderson, T.J. A new subgeneric classification for Euphorbia (Euphorbiaceae) in southern Africa based on ITS and psbA-trnH sequence data. Taxon 2006, 55, 397–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Govaerts, R.; Frodin, D.G.; Radcliffe-Smith, A. World Checklist and Bibliography of Euphorbiaceae; The Royal Botanic Gardens: Kew, UK, 2000; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  3. Steinmann, V.W.; Porter, J.M. Phylogenetic relationships in Euphorbieae (Euphorbiaceae) based on ITS and ndhF sequence data. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 2002, 89, 453–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yang, Y.; Riina, R.; Morawetz, J.J.; Haevermans, T.; Aubriot, X.; Berry, P.E. Molecular phylogenetics and classification of Euphorbia subgenus Chamaesyce (Euphorbiaceae). Taxon 2012, 61, 764–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Riina, R.; Peirson, J.A.; Geltman, D.V.; Molero, J.; Frajman, B.; Pahlevani, A.; Barres, L.; Morawetz, J.J.; Salmaki, Y.; Zarre, S. A worldwide molecular phylogeny and classification of the leafy spurges, Euphorbia subgenus Esula (Euphorbiaceae). Taxon 2013, 62, 316–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fayed, A.; Soliman, M.; Faried, A.; Mohamed, M. Leaf Morphology and Venation Patterns of Euphorbia L. (Euphorbiaceae) in Egypt with Special Notes on Their Taxonomic Implications. Jordan J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 13, 165–176. [Google Scholar]
  7. Boulos, L. Flora of Egypt; Checklist; Al-Hadara Publishing: Cairo, Egypt, 2009; p. 410. [Google Scholar]
  8. Boulos, L. Flora of Egypt (Geraniaceae-Boraginaceae): Volume 2; Al-Hadara Publishing: Cairo, Egypt, 2000; p. 392. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hebert, P.D.; Cywinska, A.; Ball, S.L.; deWaard, J.R. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2003, 270, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Thiers, B. Index Herbariorum: A Global Directory of Public Herbaria and Associated Staff. New York Botanical Garden’s Virtual Herbarium. 2019. Available online: http://sweetgum.nybg.org/science/ih (accessed on 25 February 2019).
  11. Baldwin, B.G.; Markos, S. Phylogenetic Utility of the External Transcribed Spacer (ETS) of 18S–26S rDNA: Congruence of ETS and ITS Trees of Calycadenia (Compositae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1998, 10, 449–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. White, T.J.; Bruns, T.; Lee, S.J.W.T.; Taylor, J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. PCR Protoc. Guide Methods Appl. 1990, 18, 315–322. [Google Scholar]
  13. Johnson, L.A.; Soltis, D.E. Phylogenetic inference in Saxifragaceae sensu stricto and Gilia (Polemoniaceae) using matK sequences. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1995, 149–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. CBOL Plant Working Group. A DNA barcode for land plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 12794–12797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Taberlet, P.; Gielly, L.; Pautou, G.; Bouvet, J. Universal primers for amplification of three non-coding regions of chloroplast DNA. Plant Mol. Biol. 1991, 17, 1105–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kearse, M.; Moir, R.; Wilson, A.; Stones-Havas, S.; Cheung, M.; Sturrock, S.; Buxton, S.; Cooper, A.; Markowitz, S.; Duran, C.; et al. 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] [PubMed]
  17. Horn, J.W.; van Ee, B.W.; Morawetz, J.J.; Riina, R.; Steinmann, V.W.; Berry, P.E.; Wurdack, K.J. Phylogenetics and the evolution of major structural characters in the giant genus Euphorbia L. (Euphorbiaceae). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2012, 63, 305–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Kalyaanamoorthy, S.; Minh, B.Q.; Wong, T.K.F.; von Haeseler, A.; Jermiin, L.S. ModelFinder: Fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat. Methods 2017, 14, 587–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Nguyen, L.-T.; Schmidt, H.A.; von Haeseler, A.; Minh, B.Q. IQ-TREE: A fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2015, 32, 268–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Stamatakis, A. RAxML version 8: A tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 1312–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Miller, M.A.; Pfeiffer, W.; Schwartz, T. Creating the CIPRES Science Gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. In Proceedings of the 2010 Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE), New Orleans, LA, USA, 14 November 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Ronquist, F.; Huelsenbeck, J.P. MRBAYES 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics 2003, 19, 1572–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Rambaut, A.; Drummond, A. 2003 Tracer. MCMC Trace Analysis Tool; University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2003; Available online: http://evolve.zoo.ox.ac.uk/software.html (accessed on 9 November 2020).
  24. Letunic, I.; Bork, P. Interactive Tree of Life (iTOL): An online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Bioinformatics 2006, 23, 127–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Vences, M.; Thomas, M.; Bonett, R.M.; Vieites, D.R. Deciphering amphibian diversity through DNA barcoding: Chances and challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2005, 360, 1859–1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Clement, W.L.; Donoghue, M.J. Barcoding success as a function of phylogenetic relatedness in Viburnum, a clade of woody angiosperms. BMC Evol. Biol. 2012, 12, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Braukmann, T.W.; Kuzmina, M.L.; Sills, J.; Zakharov, E.V.; Hebert, P.D. Testing the efficacy of DNA barcodes for identifying the vascular plants of Canada. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0169515. [Google Scholar]
  28. Aygoren Uluer, D.; Alshamrani, R. DNA barcoding of a complex genus, Aesculus L. (Sapindaceae) reveals lack of species-level resolution. Botany 2019, 97, 503–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, S.; Yao, H.; Han, J.; Liu, C.; Song, J.; Shi, L.; Zhu, Y.; Ma, X.; Gao, T.; Pang, X.; et al. Validation of the ITS2 region as a novel DNA barcode for identifying medicinal plant species. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e8613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Yao, H.; Song, J.; Liu, C.; Luo, K.; Han, J.; Li, Y.; Pang, X.; Xu, H.; Zhu, Y.; Xiao, P.; et al. Use of ITS2 region as the universal DNA barcode for plants and animals. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e13102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Wang, X.C.; Liu, C.; Huang, L.; Bengtsson-Palme, J.; Chen, H.; Zhang, J.H.; Cai, D.; Li, J.Q. ITS 1: A DNA barcode better than ITS2 in Eukaryotes? Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2015, 15, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Wendel, J.F.; Schnabel, A.; Seelanan, T. An unusual ribosomal DNA sequence from Gossypium gossypioides reveals ancient, cryptic, intergenomic introgression. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1995, 4, 298–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Álvarez, I.; Wendel, J.F. Ribosomal ITS sequences and plant phylogenetic inference. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2003, 29, 417–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Kress, W.J.; Wurdack, K.J.; Zimmer, E.A.; Weigt, L.A.; Janzen, D.H. Use of DNA barcodes to identify flowering plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 8369–8374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Cowan, R.S.; Chase, M.W.; Kress, W.J.; Savolainen, V. 300,000 species to identify: Problems, progress, and prospects in DNA barcoding of land plants. Taxon 2006, 55, 611–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chase, M.W.; Cowan, R.S.; Hollingsworth, P.M.; van den Berg, C.; Madriñán, S.; Petersen, G.; Seberg, O.; Jørgsensen, T.; Cameron, K.M.; Carine, M.; et al. A proposal for a zstandardized protocol to barcode all land plants. Taxon 2007, 56, 295–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. El-Banhawy, A.; Carmen, A.; Qari, S.; Elkordy, A. Molecular Identification and Phylogenetic Placement of Rosa arabica Crép. (Rosaceae), a Critically Endangered Plant Species. Life 2020, 10, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. PCR amplification and sequencing success percentage number of total individuals, number of outgroups, alignment length, total variable characters, and parsimony-informative characters of six Maximum Likelihood (ML) analyses. Please note that the ETS locus was not included in this table.
Table 1. PCR amplification and sequencing success percentage number of total individuals, number of outgroups, alignment length, total variable characters, and parsimony-informative characters of six Maximum Likelihood (ML) analyses. Please note that the ETS locus was not included in this table.
RegionPCR Amplification and Sequencing SuccessNo. of TaxaNo. of OutgroupsAlignment Length (bp)Total Variable CharactersParsimony-İnformative Characters
matK50%4241117286164 (14.7%)
rbcL71.40%982055212470 (12.7%)
trnL intron45.71%7820870400274 (31.5%)
trnL-F spacer77.14%8920483238179 (37%)
ITS66.4%13120875636486 (55.5%)
ITS1 12419362294250 (69%)
ITS2 12720301244210 (69.8%)
ITS + ETS + rbcL + matK + trnL intron + trnL-F spacer 14720437018501365 (31.2%)
Table
Table 2. Identification success of DNA barcodes singly and in combination using Maximum Likelihood (ML) and BLASTn methods. Crosses (X) indicate the species was not monophyletic in the ML tree or no BLASTn results. For the ML analyses, BS values were included for each monophyletic taxon. For the BLASTn analyses, species identification cutoff results (percentages) were also indicated. Asterisk (*) indicates that the “first hit” on the BLASTn results was correctly identified (i.e., unambiguous identifications). Empty cells indicate that species was not sampled or only one taxon was sampled (ML analysis).
Table 2. Identification success of DNA barcodes singly and in combination using Maximum Likelihood (ML) and BLASTn methods. Crosses (X) indicate the species was not monophyletic in the ML tree or no BLASTn results. For the ML analyses, BS values were included for each monophyletic taxon. For the BLASTn analyses, species identification cutoff results (percentages) were also indicated. Asterisk (*) indicates that the “first hit” on the BLASTn results was correctly identified (i.e., unambiguous identifications). Empty cells indicate that species was not sampled or only one taxon was sampled (ML analysis).
Monophyletic Species in the ML TreesBLASTn İdentification Success
ITSITS1ITS2matKrbcLtrnL-F spacertrnL intronITS + ETS + matK + rbcL+ trnL intron + trnL-F SpacerITSITS1ITS2matKrbcLtrnL-F SpacertrnL İntron
Genus Euphorbia77%XX100%X83%97%98%
E. paralias100%93%91% X100%99%79%100% *100% *100% * 98% *
E. retusaXXX 62% X100% *100% *100% * XX
E. grossheimii (E. isthmia)100%100%X XXXXXXX
E. obovata (E. prolifera)XXX 98% XXXXX100% *XX
E. falcataXXX 93%100%XXXX X
E. chamaepeplus XX
E. peplus97%XX100%X90%XX98–99% *98–99% *100% *X100% *98–100% *100%
E. dendroides100%97%92% XX83%88%
E. terracina100%99%100% 98%93%99%
E. dracunculoidesXXX X100%100% *100%XXXX
E. exigua99%91%97% X100%99%64%
E. mauritanicaXX96% XX93%92% X
E. nubica (E. consobrina)97%94%98% 100%
E. helioscopiaX77%XXX100%98%X99% *99% *99% *100% *98%99% *100% *
E. hierosolymitana100%100%98% 100%99%100%
E. pterococca100%100%98% 100%100%100%
E. acalyphoides X X
E. cuneata 100%100%100% X 96%94% *
E. hirta99%98%98%XX95%X94%99% *100% *100% *100% 99% *100% *
E. indica100%100%100%94% 98% 100%
E. hyssopifoliaXXX XX X97% 100% 100%99%
E. serpens100%96%97%77%63%100% 98%
E. scordifolia X X
E. lasiocarpaXXXXXX X95%96%90%99%100%99%X
E. prostrataX100% XXX97% XX100% * 100% *100% * 100%100%98% *100% *
E. arabicaX84%X X 36%
E. inaequilatera56%X X XX
E. granulata var. granulataXX XXX XX96%96%XX100%X
E. heterophylla100%100%97%100%X100%100%99%99% *98% *100% *99% *100%99% *93% *
E. peplis100% X X XXX97%X100%XX
E. forsskalii XX X XXX
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

El-Banhawy, A.; Uluer, D.A.; Fayed, A.A.; Mohamed, M.; Faried, A. DNA Barcoding and Phylogenetic Placement of the Genus Euphorbia L. (Euphorbiaceae) in Egypt . Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2021, 4, 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/IECPS2020-08620

AMA Style

El-Banhawy A, Uluer DA, Fayed AA, Mohamed M, Faried A. DNA Barcoding and Phylogenetic Placement of the Genus Euphorbia L. (Euphorbiaceae) in Egypt . Biology and Life Sciences Forum. 2021; 4(1):58. https://doi.org/10.3390/IECPS2020-08620

Chicago/Turabian Style

El-Banhawy, Ahmed, Deniz Aygören Uluer, Abdel Aziz Fayed, Mona Mohamed, and Ahmed Faried. 2021. "DNA Barcoding and Phylogenetic Placement of the Genus Euphorbia L. (Euphorbiaceae) in Egypt " Biology and Life Sciences Forum 4, no. 1: 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/IECPS2020-08620

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop