Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (112)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kessler, L. G.
Right arrow Articles by Avise, J. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kessler, L. G.
Right arrow Articles by Avise, J. C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol 2, 109-125, Copyright © 1985 by Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution


ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A comparative description of mitochondrial DNA differentiation in selected avian and other vertebrate genera

LG Kessler and JC Avise
Department of Genetics, University of Georgia, Athens 30602.

Levels of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence divergence between species within each of several avian (Anas, Aythya, Dendroica, Melospiza, and Zonotrichia) and nonavian (Lepomis and Hyla) vertebrate genera were compared. An analysis of digestion profiles generated by 13-18 restriction endonucleases indicates little overlap in magnitude of mtDNA divergence for the avian versus nonavian taxa examined. In 55 interspecific comparisons among the avian congeners, the fraction of identical fragment lengths (F) ranged from 0.26 to 0.96 (F = 0.46), and, given certain assumptions, these translate into estimates of nucleotide sequence divergence (p) ranging from 0.007 to 0.088; in 46 comparisons among the fish and amphibian congeners, F values ranged from 0.00 to 0.36 (F = 0.09), yielding estimates of P greater than 0.070. The small mtDNA distances among avian congeners are associated with protein-electrophoretic distances (D values) less than approximately 0.2, while the mtDNA distances among assayed fish and amphibian congeners are associated with D values usually greater than 0.4. Since the conservative pattern of protein differentiation previously reported for many avian versus nonavian taxa now appears to be paralleled by a conservative pattern of mtDNA divergence, it seems increasingly likely that many avian species have shared more recent common ancestors than have their nonavian taxonomic counterparts. However, estimates of avian divergence times derived from mtDNA- and protein-calibrated clocks cannot readily be reconciled with some published dates based on limited fossil remains. If the earlier paleontological interpretations are valid, then protein and mtDNA evolution must be somewhat decelerated in birds. The empirical and conceptual issues raised by these findings are highly analogous to those in the long-standing debate about rates of molecular evolution and times of separation of ancestral hominids from African apes.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Mol Biol EvolHome page
S. L. Pereira and A. J. Baker
A Mitogenomic Timescale for Birds Detects Variable Phylogenetic Rates of Molecular Evolution and Refutes the Standard Molecular Clock
Mol. Biol. Evol., September 1, 2006; 23(9): 1731 - 1740.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ScienceHome page
C Moritz and W. Brown
Tandem duplication of D-loop and ribosomal RNA sequences in lizard mitochondrial DNA
Science, September 26, 1986; 233(4771): 1425 - 1427.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.