Phylogeny of seed plants based on all three genomic compartments: extant gymnosperms are monophyletic and Gnetales' closest relatives are conifers.

Efforts to resolve Darwin's "abominable mystery"-the origin of angiosperms-have led to the conclusion that Gnetales and various fossil groups are sister to angiosperms, forming the "anthophytes." Morphological homologies, however, are difficult to interpret, and molecular data have not provided clear resolution of relationships among major groups of seed plants. We introduce two sequence data sets from slowly evolving mitochondrial genes, cox1 and atpA, which unambiguously reject the anthophyte hypothesis, favoring instead a close relationship between Gnetales and conifers. Parsimony- and likelihood-based analyses of plastid rbcL and nuclear 18S rDNA alone and with cox1 and atpA also strongly support a gnetophyte-conifer grouping. Surprisingly, three of four genes (all but nuclear rDNA) and combined three-genome analyses also suggest or strongly support Gnetales as derived conifers, sister to Pinaceae. Analyses with outgroups screened to avoid long branches consistently identify all gymnosperms as a monophyletic sister group to angiosperms. Combined three- and four-gene rooted analyses resolve the branching order for the remaining major groups-cycads separate from other gymnosperms first, followed by Ginkgo and then (Gnetales + Pinaceae) sister to a monophyletic group with all other conifer families. The molecular phylogeny strongly conflicts with current interpretations of seed plant morphology, and implies that many similarities between gnetophytes and angiosperms, such as "flower-like" reproductive structures and double fertilization, were independently derived, whereas other characters could emerge as synapomorphies for an expanded conifer group including Gnetales. An initial angiosperm-gymnosperm split implies a long stem lineage preceding the explosive Mesozoic radiation of flowering plants and suggests that angiosperm origins and homologies should be sought among extinct seed plant groups.

Effects of RNA editing and gene processing on phylogenetic reconstruction.

RNA editing is a ubiquitous phenomenon affecting most mitochondrial and chloroplast, and some nuclear genomes, where mutations in genomic DNA are "corrected" in the mRNA during transcriptional processing. Most editing in plants and animals corrects T-to-C substitutions at nonsynonymous first or second base positions, and the overall effect is an mRNA and protein sequence that differs from that predicted by the DNA. It has been suggested that genomic sequences that undergo editing should not be used in phylogenetics. We contend that editing will have little or no effect on DNA-based phylogenetic reconstruction because it is an intrinsic transcriptional process that does not affect the historical information in the DNA sequence. The only effect of editing on protein-coding DNA should be an increase in the rate of T-to-C transitions. Here we test the effects of RNA editing on phylogenetic reconstruction, using two data sets with high levels of editing, plant coxII and coxIII. Even with high levels of editing, phylogenies based on DNA and edited mRNA are virtually identical. The two types of sequences should not be used in the same analysis, however, because the particular forms of the gene will tend to group together. We also examine the effects of processed paralogs--a term proposed for mRNA sequences that are reverse transcribed and reinserted into the genome as intact gene sequences. Processed paralogs result in a distinct and under-appreciated source of conflict among gene trees because of RNA editing. Analyses with unidentified processed paralogs may yield incorrect phylogenies, and the sequences may evolve at different rates if the gene has been transferred from one genetic compartment (nuclear, mitochondrial, chloroplast) to another. Although RNA editing itself is not a problem in phylogenetic reconstruction, analyses should not combine mRNAs with DNAs, and processed paralogs should be either excluded or analyzed with caution.