<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" "journalpublishing.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" article-type="research-article">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">Front. Plant Sci.</journal-id>
<journal-title>Frontiers in Plant Science</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="pubmed">Front. Plant Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
<issn pub-type="epub">1664-462X</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>Frontiers Media S.A.</publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/fpls.2014.00567</article-id>
<article-categories>
<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
<subject>Plant Science</subject>
<subj-group>
<subject>Original Research Article</subject>
</subj-group>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group>
<article-title>Using multi-locus allelic sequence data to estimate genetic divergence among four <italic>Lilium</italic> (<italic>Liliaceae</italic>) cultivars</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Shahin</surname> <given-names>Arwa</given-names></name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
<uri xlink:href="http://community.frontiersin.org/people/u/161592"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Smulders</surname> <given-names>Marinus J. M.</given-names></name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
<uri xlink:href="http://community.frontiersin.org/people/u/34777"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>van Tuyl</surname> <given-names>Jaap M.</given-names></name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
<uri xlink:href="http://community.frontiersin.org/people/u/51059"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>Arens</surname> <given-names>Paul</given-names></name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
<uri xlink:href="http://community.frontiersin.org/people/u/155435"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
<name><surname>Bakker</surname> <given-names>Freek T.</given-names></name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref>
<xref ref-type="author-notes" rid="fn001"><sup>&#x0002A;</sup></xref>
<uri xlink:href="http://community.frontiersin.org/people/u/182408"/>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="aff1"><sup>1</sup><institution>Wageningen UR Plant Breeding, Wageningen University and Research Centre</institution> <country>Wageningen, Netherlands</country></aff>
<aff id="aff2"><sup>2</sup><institution>Biosystematics Group, Wageningen University</institution> <country>Wageningen, Netherlands</country></aff>
<author-notes>
<fn fn-type="edited-by"><p>Edited by: Jaime Prohens, Universitat Polit&#x000E8;cnica de Val&#x000E8;ncia, Spain</p></fn>
<fn fn-type="edited-by"><p>Reviewed by: Sergio Lanteri, University of Turin, Italy; Jose Blanca, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain</p></fn>
<fn fn-type="corresp" id="fn001"><p>&#x0002A;Correspondence: Freek T. Bakker, Biosystematics Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6700 AP Wageningen, Netherlands e-mail: <email>freek.bakker&#x00040;wur.nl</email></p></fn>
<fn fn-type="other" id="fn002"><p>This article was submitted to Crop Science and Horticulture, a section of the journal Frontiers in Plant Science.</p></fn>
</author-notes>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>20</day>
<month>10</month>
<year>2014</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="collection">
<year>2014</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>5</volume>
<elocation-id>567</elocation-id>
<history>
<date date-type="received">
<day>11</day>
<month>06</month>
<year>2014</year>
</date>
<date date-type="accepted">
<day>01</day>
<month>10</month>
<year>2014</year>
</date>
</history>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>Copyright &#x000A9; 2014 Shahin, Smulders, van Tuyl, Arens and Bakker.</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2014</copyright-year>
<license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.</p>
</license>
</permissions>
<abstract><p>Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) may enable estimating relationships among genotypes using allelic variation of multiple nuclear genes simultaneously. We explored the potential and caveats of this strategy in four genetically distant <italic>Lilium</italic> cultivars to estimate their genetic divergence from transcriptome sequences using three approaches: POFAD (Phylogeny of Organisms from Allelic Data, uses allelic information of sequence data), RAxML (Randomized Accelerated Maximum Likelihood, tree building based on concatenated consensus sequences) and Consensus Network (constructing a network summarizing among gene tree conflicts). Twenty six gene contigs were chosen based on the presence of orthologous sequences in all cultivars, seven of which also had an orthologous sequence in <italic>Tulipa</italic>, used as out-group. The three approaches generated the same topology. Although the resolution offered by these approaches is high, in this case there was no extra benefit in using allelic information. We conclude that these 26 genes can be widely applied to construct a species tree for the genus <italic>Lilium</italic>.</p></abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd><italic>Lilium</italic></kwd>
<kwd>allelic variation</kwd>
<kwd>POFAD</kwd>
<kwd>RAxML</kwd>
<kwd>Consensus Network</kwd>
<kwd>genetic divergence</kwd>
<kwd><italic>Tulipa</italic></kwd>
</kwd-group>
<counts>
<fig-count count="3"/>
<table-count count="2"/>
<equation-count count="0"/>
<ref-count count="58"/>
<page-count count="9"/>
<word-count count="6614"/>
</counts>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec sec-type="introduction" id="s1">
<title>Introduction</title>
<p>The preponderance of data used in plant molecular phylogenetics over the last decade comes from chloroplast DNA and nuclear rDNA (notably rDNA ITS) (APG, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">2003</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">2009</xref>; Chase and Reveal, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">2009</xref>). Chloroplast DNA has the advantage of straightforward genetics: haploid, non-recombinant and highly conserved with respect to gene content and arrangement, notably among closely related species (Olmstead and Palmer, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B42">1992</xref>). However, cpDNA reveals only half of the phylogenetic origin of a plant-lineage since it is uni-parentally inherited and its substitution rates are generally low compared with bi-parentally inherited nuclear DNA (Small et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B49">2004</xref>). As a special case rDNA has been used extensively in Angiosperm (and fungal) phylogenetic reconstruction, especially using the Internal Transcribed Spacer regions (White et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B55">1990</xref>; Baldwin, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">1992</xref>). However, when not all rDNA copies are fully homogenized as was observed for instance in tulip and peonies (Sang et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B46">1995</xref>; Booy et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">2000</xref>; Lim et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B30">2001</xref>; Alvarez and Wendel, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">2003</xref>), the risk of using paralogs in phylogenetic reconstruction becomes large (Kim and Jansen, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B28">1994</xref>; Sang et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B46">1995</xref>; Alvarez and Wendel, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">2003</xref>) and hence rDNA has been disregarded as phylogenetic marker in species-level Angiosperm phylogenetics [8]. Multi-locus, low copy nuclear DNA sequences have been used in plant phylogenetic studies since the late nineties (De La Torre et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">2006</xref>; Hughes et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">2006</xref>; Sanderson and McMahon, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B45">2007</xref>; Griffin et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">2011</xref>) and, because of their bi-parental inheritance and wealth of long and independently-inherited genes (Small et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B49">2004</xref>), became the focus of plant phylogenetic reconstruction in general. Also, the ability to identify heterozygosity within individuals and hybrids (allelic variation) is considered a distinct advantage of using nuclear DNA over that from organelles. Using two alleles instead of one can give, in principle, better estimations of phylogenetic relationships between closely related taxa (Joly and Bruneau, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">2006</xref>; Liu et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B31">2008</xref>), or in case of species hybrids, enable establishing correct gene trees, in which both alleles are placed within the germplasm that they are derived from Zhang et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B58">2013</xref>).</p>
<p>The availability of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) data in plants opens the door to phylogenetic studies using a wide set of loci, representing truly genome-wide coverage. Commonly-used techniques for estimating phylogenetic trees from multiple-loci data are: concatenation or &#x0201C;super matrix&#x0201D; methods (Nylander et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B41">2004</xref>), super tree construction (Beninda-Emonds, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">2004</xref>) and gene tree parsimony (Page, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B43">1998</xref>). On the other hand, <italic>Bayesian Estimation of Species Trees</italic> (Liu et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B31">2008</xref>) and <italic>Bayesian Evolutionary Analysis by Sampling Trees</italic> (Drummond and Rambaut, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">2007</xref>; Heled and Drummond, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">2010</xref>) estimate species trees from separate gene trees and deal with the multi-allelic nature of genes by enabling incorporation of several genes separately in estimating effective population size and tree topology. This is implemented by using a Monte Carlo Markov Chain to find a posterior distribution of species trees. In this way concatenation is no longer necessary and differences in mutation rate between genes can be included in the analyses, or accommodated using appropriate priors. However, SNPs between the alleles are treated as ambiguous (IUPAC) bases in consensus sequences in this approach, obviously discarding part of the available data. Use of NGS data for phylogenetic reconstruction requires choices between trade-offs, in particular so when dealing with data derived from cultivated plants, which often have a complex genetic background that may or may not be well-documented.</p>
<p>Here we explore NGS data originally generated for genetic resource and SNP marker retrieval in <italic>Lilium</italic> (Shahin et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B47">2012</xref>) in a phylogenetic context. <italic>Lilium</italic> L. was ranked among the top seven of the most popular flower bulb genera (Benschop et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">2010</xref>). <italic>Lilium</italic> is classified into seven sections based on 13 morphological and two germination characteristics (Comber, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">1949</xref>), and into four hybrid groups: Asiatic (A, <italic>Sinomartagon</italic> section), Oriental (O, <italic>Archelirion</italic> section), <italic>Longiflorum</italic> (L, <italic>Leucolirion</italic> subsection b), and Trumpet hybrid groups (T, <italic>Leucolirion</italic> subsection a). Phylogenetic relationships within <italic>Lilium</italic> were reconstructed using molecular markers (Dubouzet and Shinoda, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">1999</xref>; Nishikawa et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B40">1999</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B39">2001</xref>; Arzate-Fernandez et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">2005</xref>; Muratovi&#x00107; et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B37">2010</xref>). Most of the species clustered into clades correlating with their morphological classification of Comber (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">1949</xref>), but a few behaved differently. Species of section <italic>Leucolirion</italic> (subsection a and b) that were supposed to cluster closely according to Comber (Comber, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">1949</xref>), grouped separately. Species of <italic>Leucolirion</italic> (subsection b) were closer to section <italic>Sinomartagon</italic>, and species of <italic>Leucolirion</italic> (subsection a) were closer to section <italic>Archelirion</italic> in both studies (Nishikawa et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B40">1999</xref>; Arzate-Fernandez et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">2005</xref>). Lily breeding dates back about 200 years (Shimizu, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B48">1987</xref>), significant breakthroughs are only 50 years old however, starting with the breeding of Asiatic hybrids (McRae, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B34">1998</xref>). It has only been since the 1970&#x00027;s that the lily has become, after tulip, the most important flower bulb and cut flower (Lim and Van Tuyl, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B29">2006</xref>).</p>
<p>The aim of this study was to use transcriptome data for estimating both genetic divergence and relationships among four <italic>Lilium</italic> cultivars, and for comparing, for those orthologous sequences available, the data to a set of cultivars in <italic>Tulipa</italic>, the closest related cultivar group with transcriptome sequence data available (Shahin et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B47">2012</xref>). We use three approaches that differ with respect to optimality criteria and type of data used and compare their results: (i) separate allelic data using distance analysis, as implemented in POFAD (Joly and Bruneau, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">2006</xref>), (ii) concatenated analysis of consensed sequences, i.e., between the alleles, using maximum likelihood (RAxML, Stamatakis), and (iii) Consensus Networks (Holland et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">2005</xref>) of separate parsimony gene trees derived from consensed sequences. Whereas RAxML is a tree building method, both the POFAD and Consensus Networks approach construct and visualize comparative data in networks. Consensus Networks are reconstructed by converting trees into splits to summarize possible among-tree conflict in a reticulate structure, where edge lengths are proportional to the occurrence of splits. In contrast, the POFAD algorithm calculates a pairwise distance matrix of all (separate) haplotypes, followed by conversion of this matrix into an organism-level distance matrix by taking the average of distances between the haploids. This matrix is then visualized in a Neighbor Network (Bryant and Moulton, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">2004</xref>) allowing &#x0201C;non-treelike&#x0201D; patterns in the data. By using this algorithm we can combine the distance matrices of different loci without the need to concatenate the loci or to construct a (artificial) consensus allele per locus.</p>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="materials and methods" id="s2">
<title>Materials and methods</title>
<sec>
<title>Plant material</title>
<p>Transcriptome sequence data of four <italic>Lilium</italic> and five <italic>Tulipa</italic> cultivars (all diploid) used for this study were from Shahin et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B47">2012</xref>). The four <italic>Lilium</italic> cultivars, representing the four main hybrid groups of the genus <italic>Lilium</italic>, are: &#x0201C;Star Gazer&#x0201D; (Oriental, <italic>Archelirion</italic> section), breeding line &#x0201C;Trumpet 061099&#x0201D; (Trumpet, <italic>Leucolirion</italic> subsection a), &#x0201C;White Fox&#x0201D; (<italic>Longiflorum, Leucolirion</italic> subsection b), and &#x0201C;Connecticut King&#x0201D; (Asiatic, <italic>Sinomartagon</italic> section) (Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1">1</xref>). The five <italic>Tulipa</italic> cultivars are: &#x0201C;Cantata&#x0201D; and &#x0201C;Princeps,&#x0201D; which belong to <italic>T. fosteriana</italic> (<italic>Eichleres</italic> section), and &#x0201C;Bellona,&#x0201D; &#x0201C;Kees Nelis&#x0201D; and &#x0201C;Ile de France,&#x0201D; which belong to <italic>T. gesneriana</italic> (<italic>Tulipa</italic> section).</p>
<fig id="F1" position="float">
<label>Figure 1</label>
<caption><p><bold>Floral morphology of the four <italic>Lilium</italic> L. cultivars used in this study</bold>.</p></caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fpls-05-00567-g0001.tif"/>
</fig>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Methodology</title>
<p>For RNA isolation, library processing and 454 sequencing protocols used see Shahin et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B47">2012</xref>). The sequence data of the four <italic>Lilium</italic> cultivars were assembled using the CLC assembler (Shahin et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B47">2012</xref>). As a result of the assembly step, an Ace file was generated that contains contigs (i.e., the consensus of all assembled ESTs that belong to one locus) which were used as starting point in this analysis. Contigs with high coverage (&#x0003E;100 reads per contig and at least 4 reads for each individual cultivar) were picked for further analysis. All the individual haplotype consensus sequences (e.g., Trumpet_A, Trumpet_B) for each gene were aligned in SeqMan and trimmed to the same size for all cultivars. If a contig showed more than two haplotypes/alleles per cultivar which indicates either assembled paralogs or sequencing errors, such contig was discarded. BlastX was used for annotation of contig consensus sequences. The number of polymorphic sites for each contig (27 contigs) were calculated using TOPALi v. 2 (Milne et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B36">2009</xref>).</p>
<p>The 27 <italic>Lilium</italic> contigs were blasted to the Tulip-ALL assembly (BLASTn, 1E-20) (Shahin et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B47">2012</xref>), in order to select tulip as out-group for subsequent tree building (see below). Seven of the 27 contigs showed to have orthologous sequence in the five <italic>Tulipa</italic> cultivars that have the same criteria (high coverage &#x0003E;100 reads per contig and at least 4 reads for each individual cultivar, and only 2 haplotypes per cultivar). These seven orthologous genes were analyzed using the same steps explained above. The number of polymorphic sites for each contig were calculated using TOPALi v. 2 (Milne et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B36">2009</xref>).</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Recombination test</title>
<p>In order to use these gene contigs for phylogenetic or distance tree construction, recombination tests should be applied to avoid using any sequence that is putatively recombined, (e.g., Vriesendorp and Bakker, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B54">2005</xref>). This was done on the different haplotypes within the cultivars using PDM (Probabilistic Divergence Measure) and DSS (Difference of Sum of Squares), both implemented in TOPALi v. 2 (Milne et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B36">2009</xref>). The test operates by sliding a fixed-size window (e.g., 500 bp wide) along the alignment, comparing the left-hand part with the right-hand part in terms of phylogenetic topologies based on either part. In PDM the marginal posterior distributions of topologies are compared, whereas SSD fits pairwise genetic distances of each part to a phylogenetic tree based on the other part. Upon moving into a recombinant site, marginal distributions or SSD resp. should change. We used the default options of the program except for the nucleotide substitution model, where we replaced the (default) Jukes-Cantor model by Felsenstein84. Parametric bootstrapping was applied to estimate the significance of the predictions (100 reps). Observed values of DSS and PDM methods beyond the 95% point of this distribution may well correspond to a recombination event. Contigs with a putative recombination site were discarded for further study.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Tree building and network analysis</title>
<sec>
<title>POFAD</title>
<p>The edited and trimmed haplotypes of every locus were imported in MEGA 5 (Tamura et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B53">2011</xref>) and an uncorrected genetic distance matrix (p-distance) was generated for each contig. Reweighting the individual matrices, which is essential to insure their equal contribution in the estimation of the genetic distance, was done by the algorithm implemented in POFAD (Joly and Bruneau, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">2006</xref>). The genotypes&#x00027; reweighted matrices for each gene contig individually was transferred to SplitsTree v.4 (Huson and Bryant, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">2006</xref>) to construct Neighbor Networks. Similarly, the matrices of the 7 orthologous <italic>Lilium</italic> and <italic>Tulipa</italic> sequences were also transferred to SplitsTree v.4 for constructing Neighbor Networks.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>RAxML</title>
<p>To compare the average distance-based POFAD output with that from a character-based tree-building analysis we first merged allelic/haplotype sequences for each individual cultivar by calculating their consensus (including IUPAC bases) using Bio Edit version 7 (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.mbio.ncsu.edu/BioEdit/bioedit.html">http://www.mbio.ncsu.edu/BioEdit/bioedit.html</ext-link>), and then aligning them with other cultivars and concatenate the alignments of all contigs using Mesquite version 2.75 (Maddison and Maddison, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B33">2011</xref>). The resulting super-matrix, see Supplementary Materials, was then analyzed in RAxML (Stamatakis et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B51">2008</xref>) at the XSEDE Teragrid of the CIPRES science Gateway (Miller et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B35">2010</xref>), including 100 replicates of fast-bootstrapping using the GTR-CAT substitution model (Stamatakis, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B50">2006</xref>). Similarly, and to determine optimal rooting of our lily cultivars relationships, a super-matrix was generated for the seven genes orthologous between <italic>Lilium</italic> and <italic>Tulipa</italic> and then analyzed in RAxML (Stamatakis et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B51">2008</xref>) using the same parameters.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Consensus network</title>
<p>The alignments of all gene contigs that were built using Mesquite version 2.75, were used to construct separate gene trees by standard heuristic search in PAUP<sup>&#x0002A;</sup> (Swofford, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B52">2003</xref>). All resulting parsimony trees, including multiple equally parsimonious trees from the same alignment, were pooled and input into SplitsTree v. 44 (Huson and Bryant, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">2006</xref>), where they were decomposed into splits and assembled using the Consensus Network option. We applied various (split) conflict thresholds in order to assess among tree conflict.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="results" id="s3">
<title>Results</title>
<p>From NGS sequences generated from leaf transcriptomes of the lily cultivars (Shahin et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B47">2012</xref>), 27 contigs, with the highest overall sequence depth, were selected for this study. The length of these contigs ranged between 372 and 1230 bp (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">1</xref>), and the number of polymorphic sites (on average) varied from one in contig_22926 to 71 in contig_36700 (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">1</xref>). There were very few BlastX hits to known genes (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">1</xref>, only the highest hit is shown). The total length of <italic>Lilium</italic> sequence data used for this study was 18,275 bp, containing 623 polymorphic sites, i.e., an average of one substitution event every 29 bp.</p>
<table-wrap position="float" id="T1">
<label>Table 1</label>
<caption><p><bold>Description of the 27 <italic>Lilium</italic> contigs used in this study: length, informative sites (calculated using TOPALi), the top hit result of blasting them to gene bank is presented</bold>.</p></caption>
<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
<thead>
<tr>
<th align="left" valign="top"><bold>Contig ID</bold></th>
<th align="center" valign="top"><bold>Length</bold></th>
<th align="center" valign="top"><bold>Nr. polymorphic sites</bold></th>
<th align="left" valign="top"><bold>Accession</bold></th>
<th align="left" valign="top"><bold>Function: BLASTX</bold></th>
<th align="center" valign="top"><bold><italic>E</italic>-value</bold></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_19510</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">372</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">26</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">CBI16691.3</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">unnamed protein product [<italic>Vitis vinifera</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">7.00E-15</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_36292</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">378</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">6</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">XP_002489102.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">hypothetical protein SORBIDRAFT_1962s002010 [<italic>Sorghum bicolor</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">9.00E-20</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_34203</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">408</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">15</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">XP_002271397.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">unknown [<italic>Glycine max</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">1.00E-65</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_36290</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">423</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">6</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">XP_002488914.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">hypothetical protein SORBIDRAFT_0070s002020 [<italic>Sorghum bicolor</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">3.00E-25</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_21012</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">490</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">43</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">CBI28652.3</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">unnamed protein product [<italic>Vitis vinifera</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">1.00E-66</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_30305</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">500</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">12</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">XP_002322328.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">predicted protein [<italic>Populus trichocarpa</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">1.00E-66</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_22926</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">510</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">CAN66875.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">hypothetical protein VITISV_009275 [<italic>Vitis vinifera</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">6.00E-14</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_35696</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">551</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">32</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">CBI27136.3</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">unnamed protein product [<italic>Vitis vinifera</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">3.00E-43</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_25751</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">588</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">11</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">ACI31551.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">heat shock protein 90-2 [<italic>Glycine max</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">7.00E-91</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_48560</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">615</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">11</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">XP_002280853.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">hypothetical protein [<italic>Vitis vinifera</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">8.00E-50</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_19882</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">630</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">40</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">NP_001060290.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">hypothetical protein OsJ_25146 [<italic>Oryza sativa</italic> Japonica Group]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">7.00E-61</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_34918</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">634</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">41</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">XP_002460541.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">hypothetical protein SORBIDRAFT_02g030210 [<italic>Sorghum bicolor</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">1.00E-33</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_36700</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">639</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">71</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">AAZ57445.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">lipoxygenase LOX2 [<italic>Populus deltoides</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">5.00E-40</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_34983</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">660</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">18</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">NP_001183774.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">hypothetical protein LOC100502367 [<italic>Zea mays</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">2.00E-113</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_34202</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">666</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">29</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">ACU18883.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">PREDICTED: hypothetical protein [<italic>Vitis vinifera</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">6.00E-100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_6165</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">714</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">3</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">YP_003587262.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">ATPase subunit 4 [<italic>Citrullus lanatus</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">1.00E-71</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_21042</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">717</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">39</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">XP_002284696.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">PREDICTED: hypothetical protein [<italic>Vitis vinifera</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">1.00E-62</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_5703</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">720</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">20</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">EEE57528.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">hypothetical protein OsJ_07840 [<italic>Oryza sativa</italic> Japonica Group]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">6.00E-101</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_30546</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">729</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">49</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">CAN72815.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">hypothetical protein VITISV_004099 [<italic>Vitis vinifera</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">6.00E-44</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_36051</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">736</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">12</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">EEC79215.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">hypothetical protein OsI_19939 [<italic>Oryza sativa</italic> Indica Group]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">2.00E-125</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_72799</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">747</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">20</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">ACZ82298.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">cellulose synthase [<italic>Phyllostachys edulis</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">2.00E-115</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_34429</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">817</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">24</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">AAY43222.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">cellulose synthase BoCesA5 [<italic>Bambusa oldhamii</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">5.00E-121</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_20744</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">840</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">18</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">ABB46861.2</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">Enolase, putative, expressed [<italic>Oryza sativa</italic> Japonica Group]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">2.00E-133</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_31438</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">957</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">10</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">ACG36494.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">histone mRNA exonuclease 1 [<italic>Zea mays</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">2.00E-94</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_6081</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">987</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">2</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">AAV44205.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">unknow protein [<italic>Oryza sativa</italic> Japonica Group]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">3.00E-62</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_6523</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">1017</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">29</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">AAW78691.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">peroxisomal acyl-CoA oxidase 1A [<italic>Solanum cheesmaniae</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">3.00E-166</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_10364</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">1230</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">35</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">NP_001151315.1</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">transmembrane 9 superfamily protein member 1 [<italic>Zea mays</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Total</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">18,275</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">623</td>
<td/>
<td/>
<td/>
<td/>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
<p>Seven out of 27 contigs have orthologous sequences with five <italic>Tulipa</italic> cultivars, and were included in our study as a separate analysis (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">2</xref>). The contig length ranged between 423 and 1230 bp. The number of polymorphic sites among the nine cultivars (on average) was very low in some contigs (8 sites in contig_6081), but much higher in others (200 sites in contig_10364) (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">2</xref>). A total of 5790 bp with 587 polymorphic sites were available for this part of the study, of which 395 sites were polymorphic only between <italic>Lilium</italic> and <italic>Tulipa</italic>, 124 sites were also polymorphic within <italic>Lilium</italic>, and 68 were also polymorphic within <italic>Tulipa</italic>. This is equivalent to a substitution rate of 0.021 substitutions per site in <italic>Lilium</italic>, 0.012 in <italic>Tulipa</italic>, and 0.1 between <italic>Lilium</italic> and <italic>Tulipa</italic>.</p>
<table-wrap position="float" id="T2">
<label>Table 2</label>
<caption><p><bold>As Table 1 but for the seven orthologous contigs between <italic>Lilium</italic> and <italic>Tulipa</italic> used in this study</bold>.</p></caption>
<table frame="hsides" rules="groups">
<thead>
<tr>
<th align="left" valign="top"><bold><italic>Lilium</italic> Contig</bold></th>
<th align="left" valign="top"><bold><italic>Tulipa</italic> Contig</bold></th>
<th align="center" valign="top"><bold>Length</bold></th>
<th align="center" valign="top"><bold>Nr. polymorphic sites</bold></th>
<th align="left" valign="top"><bold>Function: BLASTX</bold></th>
<th align="center" valign="top"><bold><italic>E</italic>-value</bold></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_36290</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_47963</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">423</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">17</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">hypothetical protein SORBIDRAFT_0070s002020 [<italic>Sorghum bicolor</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">3.00E-25</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_34202</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_49866</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">666</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">86</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">PREDICTED: hypothetical protein [<italic>Vitis vinifera</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">6.00E-100</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_5307</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_49304</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">720</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">87</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">hypothetical protein OsJ_07840 [<italic>Oryza sativa</italic> Japonica Group]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">6.00E-101</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_72799</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_34429</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">747</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">69</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">cellulose synthase [<italic>Phyllostachys edulis</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">2.00E-115</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_6081</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_29742</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">987</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">8</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">unknown protein [<italic>Oryza sativa</italic> Japonica Group]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">3.00E-62</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_6523</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_48627</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">1017</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">120</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">peroxisomal acyl-CoA oxidase 1A [Solanum cheesmaniae]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">3.00E-166</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_10364</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">Contig_55032</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">1230</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">200</td>
<td align="left" valign="top">transmembrane 9 superfamily protein member 1 [<italic>Zea mays</italic>]</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="left" valign="top">Total</td>
<td/>
<td align="center" valign="top">5790</td>
<td align="center" valign="top">587</td>
<td/>
<td/>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</table-wrap>
<sec>
<title>Recombination test</title>
<p>In case a recombination event is detected in a contig this would indicate that more than one evolutionary history is present in this sequence. Therefore, any recombinant sequences, as detected by our TOPALi analysis, were discarded from further phylogenetic analysis. This turned out to be only one of the 27 <italic>Lilium</italic> contigs (contig_30546), which showed a possible recombination event between positions 157 and 220 bp.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Tree building and network analysis</title>
<sec>
<title>POFAD</title>
<p>Gene trees were constructed for each contig separately using POFAD. In 23 of the 26 gene trees, &#x0201C;Connecticut King&#x0201D; and &#x0201C;White Fox&#x0201D; grouped together, as well as &#x0201C;Star Gazer&#x0201D; and &#x0201C;Trumpet&#x0201D; (the exceptions being Contig_25751, contig_6165, and contig_34202). The same clustering resulted from constructing the Neighbor Network of the combined weighted genetic distance matrices of the 26 gene contigs (Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">2A</xref>). As expected, introducing <italic>Tulipa</italic> as an out-group to the analysis did not introduce changes in the clustering among the <italic>Lilium</italic> cultivars (Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3">3A</xref>). The four cultivars are connected to multiple edges in the Network (Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3">3A</xref>), possibly indicating &#x0201C;non tree-like&#x0201D; behavior of the sequences involved. As for <italic>Tulipa</italic>, &#x0201C;Cantata&#x0201D; and &#x0201C;Princeps&#x0201D; that belong to <italic>T. fosteriana</italic> grouped together and &#x0201C;Ile de France,&#x0201D; &#x0201C;Kees Nelis&#x0201D; and &#x0201C;Bellona&#x0201D; that belong to <italic>T. gesneriana</italic> clustered together as well with multiple edges (Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3">3A</xref>).</p>
<fig id="F2" position="float">
<label>Figure 2</label>
<caption><p><bold>Representation of the relationships of the four <italic>Lilium</italic> cultivars: &#x0201C;Star Gazer&#x0201D; referred to as &#x0201C;SG,&#x0201D; &#x0201C;Trumpet 061099&#x0201D; referred to as &#x0201C;TR,&#x0201D; &#x0201C;White Fox&#x0201D; referred to as &#x0201C;WF,&#x0201D; and &#x0201C;Connecticut King&#x0201D; referred to as &#x0201C;CK&#x0201D; obtained from the combined analysis of all 26 non-recombinant contigs. (A)</bold> Neighbor Network based on 26 <italic>Lilium</italic> contigs, using the POFAD approach. <bold>(B)</bold> RAxML tree (with 100 rep. bootstrap support values) of the 26 <italic>Lilium</italic> concatenated consensus, <bold>(C)</bold> Consensus Network based on parsimony trees (see text) using a threshold of 0.33 split conflict, and <bold>(D)</bold> Consensus Network for the same trees using a threshold of 10%. Branch length is proportional to the genetic divergence among genotypes <bold>(A,B</bold>, with the scale bar indicating numbers of substitutions per site), and proportional to the occurrence of splits in the consensus network analysis <bold>(D,C)</bold>.</p></caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fpls-05-00567-g0002.tif"/>
</fig>
<fig id="F3" position="float">
<label>Figure 3</label>
<caption><p><bold>As Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">2</xref> but with five <italic>Tulipa</italic> cultivars included (see text)</bold>.</p></caption>
<graphic xlink:href="fpls-05-00567-g0003.tif"/>
</fig>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>RAxML</title>
<p>RAxML analysis of the consensus sequences (alleles had been merged into consensus sequences, see M&#x00026;M) of the concatenated 26 contigs (best tree) resulted in grouping &#x0201C;Connecticut King&#x0201D; and &#x0201C;White Fox&#x0201D; together without bootstrap support, and in grouping &#x0201C;Star Gazer&#x0201D; and &#x0201C;Trumpet&#x0201D; together with bootstrap value 100 (Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">2B</xref>), yielding the same tree topology as POFAD Network. RAxML tree of the seven concatenated gene alignments of <italic>Lilium</italic> and <italic>Tulipa</italic> showed also a comparable topology and branch lengths as found using POFAD for both <italic>Lilium</italic> and <italic>Tulipa</italic> (Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3">3B</xref>) but with relatively high bootstrap values (Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3">3B</xref>).</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Consensus network</title>
<p>After parsimony analyses of the separate 26 alignments (excluding the potentially recombinant contig_30546), all resulting 68 equally parsimonious reconstructions were combined in a Consensus Network that resulted in the same topology as the POFAD and RAxML tree (Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">2C</xref>). Using a (default) split-conflict threshold of 0.33, the Consensus Network was tree-shaped (Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">2D</xref>), whereas lowering this threshold to 5% resulted in a box structure separating the 4 cultivars at equidistance. For the seven ortholog analysis, for both all 4 <italic>Lilium</italic> and 5 <italic>Tulipa</italic> cultivars, we obtained a Consensus Network (Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3">3C</xref>) that was congruent with the POFAD Median Network showing comparable resolution.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="discussion" id="s4">
<title>Discussion</title>
<p>Multi-locus genomic data obtained by NGS technology are rapidly becoming the main sources for inferring evolutionary relationships (Haussler et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">2009</xref>; Emerson et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">2010</xref>; Griffin et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">2011</xref>) providing factors such as taxon sampling (Graybeal, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">1998</xref>), polymorphic sites (Lopez et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B32">2002</xref>) and hybridization (Naumov et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B38">2000</xref>) have been properly accommodated. Nuclear DNA is more dynamic and evolves faster than plastid DNA, thus it provides a rich source of polymorphisms compared with plastid DNA; however, depending on what taxonomic level is targeted, we expect more nuclear genes to be required for constructing phylogenetic relationships due to the bi-parentally inherited and recombinant nature of nuclear DNA. In yeasts, a minimum of 8&#x02013;20 genes were found to be sufficient to generate a stable species tree topology with bootstrap values of at least 70&#x02013;95% (Rokas et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B44">2003</xref>) which is largely influenced by number of informative sites present in these genes (Rokas et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B44">2003</xref>) as well as the species tree estimation method used (Edwards et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">2007</xref>). In our study, using 7 or 26 contigs genes resulted in the same tree topology. We did not further explore possible among gene tree incongruences as our Consensus Network analysis yielded patterns congruent or identical to those obtained by POFAD and RAxML. However, the use of TOPALi could in principle be extended from detecting candidate recombinant sites among haplotypes to the concatenated contigs, in order to detect among gene tree incongruence, when relevant. This could then provide valuable additional insight into the relationships between the cultivars.</p>
<p>Genetic variation among the four <italic>Lilium</italic> cultivars (0.034 substitutions per site) was higher than that detected for <italic>Tulipa</italic> (0.021 substitutions per site, data not shown). The same result was obtained using the seven orthologous genes between <italic>Lilium</italic> and <italic>Tulipa</italic>, which are expected to be conserved genes (0.021 subst/site in <italic>Lilium</italic> and 0.012 subst/site in <italic>Tulipa</italic>). As the cultivars used are thought to represent overall diversity and classification in these genera (see Introduction) we feel these rate differences are not affected by (taxonomic) sampling artifacts and may actually reflect genetic divergence within the respective genera.</p>
<p>Both <italic>Lilium</italic> and <italic>Tulipa</italic> are outcrossing species, and vegetatively reproduced. Thus, the apparent difference in evolutionary rate can probably be explained by generation time and breeding history. Generation time (2.5x faster in lily compared with tulip) is considered to be negatively correlated with substitution rate, while breeding and selection probably influences the fixation of substitutions over generations (Buschiazzo et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">2012</xref>). In addition, sequence divergence rates are considered to be governed by life span, i.e., short-lived species are capable of changing more quickly than those that have a longer life span and reproduce less often, and indeed, higher evolution rates have been observed in annuals compared with perennials (Yue et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B57">2010</xref>). Another possible explanation for the different evolutionary rates between <italic>Tulipa</italic> and <italic>Lilium</italic> is their breeding history, though documentation is limited due to the fact that breeding historically was widely done by amateurs and private companies before professional institutes took over (Benschop et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">2010</xref>). However, it is known that the breeding history of lily is more complex than tulip since more species were involved, which might explain the difference in evolution rate between both cultivar groups, as it could reflect actual difference in <italic>N</italic><sub>e</sub>.</p>
<p>In our analyses <italic>Lilium</italic> cultivars &#x0201C;Connecticut King&#x0201D; and &#x0201C;White Fox,&#x0201D; belonging to sections <italic>Sinomartagon</italic> and <italic>Leucolirion</italic> (subsection b) respectively, always grouped together, while &#x0201C;Star Gazer&#x0201D; and &#x0201C;Trumpet&#x0201D; (sections <italic>Archelirion</italic> and <italic>Leucolirion</italic> subsection a) clustered together as well (Figures <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">2A&#x02013;D</xref>). Similar results were reported in other phylogenetic studies (Nishikawa et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B40">1999</xref>; Arzate-Fernandez et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">2005</xref>), based on cpDNA sequence comparisons. This is not in agreement with Comber&#x00027;s (Comber, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">1949</xref>) classification, based on morphological and germination characteristics, in which &#x0201C;White Fox&#x0201D; and &#x0201C;Trumpet&#x0201D; belong to the same section <italic>(Leucolirion)</italic>. On the other hand, crosses of <italic>Longiflorum</italic> hybrids (L, <italic>Leucolirion</italic> subsection b) with Trumpet hybrids (T, <italic>Leucolirion</italic> subsection a) are less successful compared with crosses of Trumpet hybrids with Oriental hybrids (O, <italic>Archelirion</italic>) and compared to crosses of <italic>Longiflorum</italic> hybrids with Asiatic hybrids (<italic>Sinomartagon</italic>) (Alex van Silfhout, Wageningen UR Plant Breeding, personal observations). In the latter there are even combinations in which hybrids are fertile on the diploid level and can be used for analytic breeding (Khan et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">2009</xref>). Thus, patterns derived from crossability and molecular markers appear to support each other in <italic>Lilium</italic>.</p>
<sec>
<title>Comparison of methods</title>
<p>Given the ongoing increase of generating comparative transcriptome data, at and below the plant species-level, comparing analytical approaches in terms of performance and accuracy is more important than ever. In this paper we demonstrate the relative performance of commonly-used tree and network building methods.</p>
<p>The POFAD algorithm implements allelic information for inferring genetic distances in cultivars. Using POFAD helped to include the variation between haplotypes in estimating their relationships by taking their average (i.e., un-observed) distances. However, the standard POFAD pipeline does not allow inferring node-support, for instance by bootstrap values. This could be overcome by bootstrapping the sequence alignments, then following the POFAD procedure for each bootstrapped (pseudo) alignment and summarizing the occurrence of groups (bootstrap frequencies), similar to Neighbor Joining bootstrapping.</p>
<p>Three lily gene contigs presented deviating Neighbor Joining topologies in our analyses. These reflect either artifacts due to the low number of samples used (long branches and short internode) (Wiens, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B56">2005</xref>), the NJ algorithm itself, or biological deviation which can be explained by assuming that each genomic region underwent an unique array of evolutionary events such as recombination, selection, mutation and/or gene flow (Buerkle et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">2011</xref>). If such fragments are highly informative for their own phylogenetic history, it might in principle be possible to track every genomic segment to its origin and thus visualize species hybridization events (Zhang et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B58">2013</xref>).</p>
<p>The three approaches generated the same topology, be it at different resolutions. Neighbor Network and the Consensus Network approaches suggested some non-tree like evolution in our gene contig sequences, possibly reflecting reticulate breeding histories within <italic>Lilium</italic> and <italic>Tulipa</italic> (Figures <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3">3A,C</xref>). On the other hand, the concatenated approach (RAxML) generated one tree that may actually simplify evolutionary history (Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3">3B</xref>).</p>
<p>Obviously, the limited &#x0201C;taxon&#x0201D; sampling of the cultivars used in our study could limit the generality of our findings. For instance, using bi-allelic data did not appear to add significantly to our estimation of cultivar relationships. It will be interesting to extend a comparative study using bi-allelic data of nDNA in order to assess evolutionary relationships between other, hybrid species, using these approaches. Limited &#x0201C;taxon&#x0201D; sampling combined with increased character-sampling can easily result in long-branch attraction artifacts (Wiens, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B56">2005</xref>). However, our results in terms of topologies obtained by the three approaches was in agreement with Nishikawa et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B40">1999</xref>), who used 55 <italic>Lilium</italic> species. This may be related to the availability of a large sequence data set rich in polymorphic sites (26 gene contigs sequences: more than 18 kb yielded around 600 polymorphic sites in <italic>Lilium</italic>) in the present study. These 26 contigs could therefore be an excellent set of genes to study the phylogeny of <italic>Lilium</italic> in depth by comparing to many other species and construct gene trees and species trees. Similarly, the seven orthologous sequences among the nine <italic>Lilium</italic> and <italic>Tulipa</italic> sequence provide promising material to build generic-level trees.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec sec-type="conclusions" id="s5">
<title>Conclusions</title>
<p>Our study demonstrates the applicability of sequence data generated by next generation technology for estimating genetic divergence using the most commonly-used tree and network building methods. However, the benefit of the allelic nature of nuclear DNA in estimating the phylogeny of hybrids is still to be further established. The high number of polymorphic sites identified showed to be an effective tool for measuring genetic divergence, and the possible wide usage of these genes for phylogeny study for <italic>Lilium</italic> and <italic>Tulipa</italic> genus. The strategy to determine genetic distances based on a random set of genes for which orthologous sequences are retrieved from transcriptome sequencing, can be broadly applied. As the number of transcriptome datasets keeps increasing exponentially this will enable studies of the genetic relationships in many species complexes.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<title>Author contributions</title>
<p>Arwa Shahin participated in designing the work, generation, analysis and interpretation of the data. Freek T. Bakker contributed to the conception of the work, analysis and interpretation of the data. Jaap M. van Tuyl participated in the conception of the work. Marinus J. M Smulders participated in designing the work and interpretation of data. Paul Arens participated in the conception of the work and interpretation of data. The MS is written by Arwa Shahin, and revised critically by all co-authors. The co-authors approved the final version of the MS, and they agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.</p>
<sec>
<title>Conflict of interest statement</title>
<p>The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.</p></sec>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<ack>
<p>Technological Top Institute Green Genetics (TTI GG) is thanked for their financial support in sequence data production.</p>
</ack>
<sec sec-type="supplementary-material" id="s6">
<title>Supplementary material</title>
<p>The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.frontiersin.org/journal/10.3389/fpls.2014.00567/abstract">http://www.frontiersin.org/journal/10.3389/fpls.2014.00567/abstract</ext-link></p>
<supplementary-material xlink:href="DataSheet1.ZIP" mimetype="application/zip" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"/>
</sec>
<ref-list>
<title>References</title>
<ref id="B1">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Alvarez</surname> <given-names>I.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wendel</surname> <given-names>J. F.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>). <article-title>Ribosomal ITS sequences and plant phylogenetic inference</article-title>. <source>Mol. Phylogenet. Evol</source>. <volume>29</volume>, <fpage>417</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>434</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/S1055-7903(03)00208-2</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">14615184</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><collab>APG</collab></person-group>. (<year>2003</year>). <article-title>An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II</article-title>. <source>Bot. J. Linnean Soc</source>. <volume>141</volume>, <fpage>399</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>436</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1046/j.1095-8339.2003.t01-1-00158.x</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><collab>APG</collab></person-group>. (<year>2009</year>). <article-title>An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III</article-title>. <source>Bot. J. Linnean Soc</source>. <volume>161</volume>, <fpage>105</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>121</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.00996.x</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Arzate-Fernandez</surname> <given-names>A. M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Mej&#x000ED;a-Gonz&#x000E1;lez</surname> <given-names>C. O.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Nakazaki</surname> <given-names>T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Okumoto</surname> <given-names>Y.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Tanisaka</surname> <given-names>T.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>). <article-title>Isozyme electrophoretic characterization of 29 related cultivars of lily (Lilium spp.)</article-title>. <source>Plant Breed</source>. <volume>124</volume>, <fpage>71</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>78</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1439-0523.2004.01046.x</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Baldwin</surname> <given-names>B.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1992</year>). <article-title>Phylogenetic utility of the internal transcribed spacers of nuclear ribosomal DNA in plants: an example from the Compositae</article-title>. <source>Mol. Phylogenet. Evol</source>. <volume>1</volume>, <fpage>3</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>16</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/1055-7903(92)90030-K</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">1342921</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Beninda-Emonds</surname> <given-names>O. R. P.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>). <source>Phylogenetic Super Trees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life</source>. <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Springer Verlag</publisher-name>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/978-1-4020-2330-9</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Benschop</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Kamenetsky</surname> <given-names>R.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Le Nard</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Okubo</surname> <given-names>H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>De Hertogh</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2010</year>). <article-title>The global flower bulb industry: production, utilization, research</article-title>, in <source>Horticultural Reviews</source>, ed <person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Janick</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<publisher-loc>Hoboken, NJ</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>John Wiley &#x00026; Sons, Inc.</publisher-name>), <fpage>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>115</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Booy</surname> <given-names>G.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Schoot</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Vosman</surname> <given-names>B.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>). <article-title>Heterogeneity of the internal transcribed spacer 1 (ITS1) <italic>in Tulipa</italic> (Liliaceae)</article-title>. <source>Plant Syst. Evol</source>. <volume>225</volume>, <fpage>29</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>41</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/BF00985457</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Bryant</surname> <given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Moulton</surname> <given-names>V.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>). <article-title>Neighbor-Net: an agglomerative method for the construction of phylogenetic networks</article-title>. <source>Mol. Biol. Evol</source>. <volume>21</volume>, <fpage>255</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>265</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/molbev/msh018</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">14660700</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Buerkle</surname> <given-names>C. A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Gompert</surname> <given-names>Z.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Parchman</surname> <given-names>T. L.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2011</year>). <article-title>The n &#x0003D; 1 constraint in population genomics</article-title>. <source>Mol. Ecol</source>. <volume>20</volume>, <fpage>1575</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>1581</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05046.x</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21375635</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Buschiazzo</surname> <given-names>E.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ritland</surname> <given-names>C.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Bohlmann</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>And Ritland</surname> <given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2012</year>). <article-title>Slow but not low: genomic comparisons reveal slower evolutionary rate and higher dN/dS in conifers compared to angiosperms</article-title>. <source>BMC Evol. Biol</source>. <volume>12</volume>:<fpage>8</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/1471-2148-12-8</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22264329</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Chase</surname> <given-names>M. W.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Reveal</surname> <given-names>J. L.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2009</year>). <article-title>A phylogenetic classification of the land plants to accompany APG III</article-title>. <source>Bot. J. Linnean Soc</source>. <volume>161</volume>, <fpage>122</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>127</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.01002.x</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Comber</surname> <given-names>H. F.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1949</year>). <article-title>A new classification of the genus <italic>Lilium</italic></article-title>. <source>Lily Yearb. R. Hort. Soc</source>. <volume>13</volume>, <fpage>86</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>105</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>De La Torre</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Egan</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Katari</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Brenner</surname> <given-names>E.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Stevenson</surname> <given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Coruzzi</surname> <given-names>G.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2006</year>). <article-title>ESTimating plant phylogeny: lessons from partitioning</article-title>. <source>BMC Evol. Biol</source>. <volume>6</volume>:<fpage>48</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/1471-2148-6-48</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16776834</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B15">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Drummond</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Rambaut</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>). <article-title>BEAST: bayesian evolutionary analysis by sampling trees</article-title>. <source>BMC Evol. Biol</source>. <volume>7</volume>:<fpage>214</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/1471-2148-7-214</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17996036</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B16">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Dubouzet</surname> <given-names>J. G.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Shinoda</surname> <given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>). <article-title>Phylogenetic analysis of the internal transcribed spacer region of Japanese Lilium species</article-title>. <source>Theor. Appl. Genet</source>. <volume>98</volume>, <fpage>954</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>960</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s001220051155</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B17">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Edwards</surname> <given-names>S. V.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Liu</surname> <given-names>L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Pearl</surname> <given-names>D. K.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>). <article-title>High-resolution species trees without concatenation</article-title>. <source>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A</source>. <volume>104</volume>, <fpage>5936</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>5941</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.0607004104</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17392434</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B18">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Emerson</surname> <given-names>K. J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Merz</surname> <given-names>C. R.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Catchen</surname> <given-names>J. M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Hohenlohe</surname> <given-names>P. A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Cresko</surname> <given-names>W. A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Bradshaw</surname> <given-names>W. E.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2010</year>). <article-title>Resolving postglacial phylogeography using high-throughput sequencing</article-title>. <source>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A</source>. <volume>107</volume>, <fpage>16196</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>16200</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.1006538107</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20798348</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B19">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Graybeal</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>). <article-title>Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem?</article-title> <source>Syst. Biol</source>. <volume>47</volume>, <fpage>9</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>17</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/106351598260996</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">12064243</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B20">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Griffin</surname> <given-names>P.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Robin</surname> <given-names>C.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Hoffmann</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2011</year>). <article-title>A next-generation sequencing method for overcoming the multiple gene copy problem in polyploid phylogenetics, applied to Poa grasses</article-title>. <source>BMC Biol</source>. <volume>9</volume>:<fpage>19</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/1741-7007-9-19</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21429199</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B21">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Haussler</surname> <given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>O&#x00027;brien</surname> <given-names>S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ryder</surname> <given-names>O.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Barker</surname> <given-names>F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Clamp</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Crawford</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2009</year>). <article-title>Genome 10K: a proposal to obtain whole-genome sequence for 10 000 vertebrate species</article-title>. <source>J. Hered</source>. <volume>100</volume>, <fpage>659</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>674</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/jhered/esp086</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19892720</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B22">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Heled</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Drummond</surname> <given-names>A. J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2010</year>). <article-title>Bayesian inference of species trees from multilocus data</article-title>. <source>Mol. Biol. Evol</source>. <volume>27</volume>, <fpage>570</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>580</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/molbev/msp274</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19906793</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B23">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Holland</surname> <given-names>B. R.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Delsuc</surname> <given-names>F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Moulton</surname> <given-names>V.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Baker</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>). <article-title>Visualizing conflicting evolutionary hypotheses in large collections of trees: using consensus networks to study the origins of placentals and hexapods</article-title>. <source>Syst. Biol</source>. <volume>54</volume>, <fpage>66</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>76</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/10635150590906055</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15805011</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B24">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hughes</surname> <given-names>C. E.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Eastwood</surname> <given-names>R. J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Bailey</surname> <given-names>C. D.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>). <article-title>From famine to feast? Selecting nuclear DNA sequence loci for plant species-level phylogeny reconstruction</article-title>. <source>Philos. Trans. Biol. Sci</source>. <volume>361</volume>, <fpage>211</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>225</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1098/rstb.2005.1735</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16553318</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B25">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Huson</surname> <given-names>D. H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Bryant</surname> <given-names>D.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>). <article-title>Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies</article-title>. <source>Mol. Biol. Evol</source>. <volume>23</volume>, <fpage>254</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>267</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/molbev/msj030</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16221896</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B26">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Joly</surname> <given-names>S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Bruneau</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>). <article-title>Incorporating allelic variation for reconstructing the evolutionary history of organisms from multiple genes: an example from rosa in North America</article-title>. <source>Syst. Biol</source>. <volume>55</volume>, <fpage>623</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>636</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/10635150600863109</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16969938</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B27">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Khan</surname> <given-names>N.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ramanna</surname> <given-names>M. S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Visser</surname> <given-names>R. G. F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Van Tuyl</surname> <given-names>J. M.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2009</year>). <article-title>Potential for analytic breeding in allopolyploids: an illustration from Longiflorum x Asiatic hybrid lilies (Lilium)</article-title>. <source>Euphytica</source> <volume>166</volume>, <fpage>399</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>409</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s10681-008-9824-0</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B28">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kim</surname> <given-names>K. J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Jansen</surname> <given-names>R. K.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1994</year>). <article-title>Comparisons of phylogenetic hypotheses among different data sets in dwarf dandelions (Krigia, Asteraceae): additional information from internal transcribed spacer sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA</article-title>. <source>Plant Syst. Evol</source>. <volume>190</volume>, <fpage>157</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>185</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/BF00986191</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B29">
<citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lim</surname> <given-names>K. B.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Van Tuyl</surname> <given-names>J. M.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>). <article-title>Lilium hybrids</article-title>, in <source>Flower Breeding and Genetics: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities for the 21st Century</source>, ed <person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Anderson</surname> <given-names>N. O.</given-names></name></person-group> (<publisher-loc>Dordrecht</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Springer</publisher-name>), <fpage>517</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>537</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/978-1-4020-4428-1_20</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B30">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lim</surname> <given-names>K.-B.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wennekes</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Jong</surname> <given-names>J. H. D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Jacobsen</surname> <given-names>E.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Van Tuyl</surname> <given-names>J. M.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>). <article-title>Karyotype analysis of Lilium longiflorum and Lilium rubellum by chromosome banding and fluorescence <italic>in situ</italic> hybridisation</article-title>. <source>Genome</source> <volume>44</volume>, <fpage>911</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>918</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1139/gen-44-5-911</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11681616</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B31">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Liu</surname> <given-names>L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Pearl</surname> <given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Brumfield</surname> <given-names>R.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Edwards</surname> <given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2008</year>). <article-title>Estimating species trees using multiple-allele DNA sequence data</article-title>. <source>Evolution</source> <volume>62</volume>, <fpage>2080</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>2091</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00414.x</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18462214</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B32">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lopez</surname> <given-names>P.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Casane</surname> <given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Philippe</surname> <given-names>H.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2002</year>). <article-title>Heterotachy, an important process of protein evolution</article-title>. <source>Mol. Biol. Evol</source>. <volume>19</volume>, <fpage>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>7</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003973</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11752184</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B33">
<citation citation-type="web"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Maddison</surname> <given-names>W. P.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Maddison</surname> <given-names>D. R.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2011</year>). <source>&#x0201C;Mesquite: A Modular System for Evolutionary Analysis</source>. Version 2.75. Availabe online at: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://mesquiteproject.org">http://mesquiteproject.org</ext-link>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B34">
<citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>McRae</surname> <given-names>E.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>). <source>Lilies: A Guide for Growers and Collectors</source>. <publisher-loc>Portland, OR</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Timber press</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B35">
<citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Miller</surname> <given-names>M. A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Pfeiffer</surname> <given-names>W.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Schwartz</surname> <given-names>T.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2010</year>). <article-title>Creating the CIPRES science gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees</article-title>, in <source>Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE)</source> (<publisher-loc>New Orleans, LA</publisher-loc>), <fpage>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>8</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B36">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Milne</surname> <given-names>I.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Lindner</surname> <given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Bayer</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Husmeier</surname> <given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>McGuire</surname> <given-names>G.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Marshall</surname> <given-names>D. F.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2009</year>). <article-title>TOPALi v2: a rich graphical interface for evolutionary analyses of multiple alignments on HPC clusters and multi-core desktops</article-title>. <source>Bioinformatics</source> <volume>25</volume>, <fpage>126</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>127</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/bioinformatics/btn575</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18984599</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B37">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Muratovi&#x00107;</surname> <given-names>E.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Hidalgo</surname> <given-names>O.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Garnatje</surname> <given-names>T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Siljak-Yakovlev</surname> <given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2010</year>). <article-title>Molecular phylogeny and genome size in European lilies (Genus Lilium, Liliaceae)</article-title>. <source>Adv. Sci. Lett</source>. <volume>3</volume>, <fpage>180</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>189</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1166/asl.2010.1116</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B38">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Naumov</surname> <given-names>G. I.</given-names></name> <name><surname>James</surname> <given-names>S. A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Naumova</surname> <given-names>E. S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Louis</surname> <given-names>E. J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Roberts</surname> <given-names>I. N.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2000</year>). <article-title>Three new species in the Saccharomyces sensu stricto complex: <italic>Saccharomyces cariocanus</italic>, <italic>Saccharomyces kudriavzevii</italic> and <italic>Saccharomyces mikatae</italic></article-title>. <source>Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol</source>. <volume>50</volume>, <fpage>1931</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>1942</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11034507</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B39">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Nishikawa</surname> <given-names>T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Okazaki</surname> <given-names>K.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Arakawa</surname> <given-names>K.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Nagamine</surname> <given-names>T.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2001</year>). <article-title>Phylogenetic analysis of section sinomartagon in genus lilium using sequences of the internal transcribed spacer region in nuclear ribosomal DNA</article-title>. <source>Breed. Sci</source>. <volume>51</volume>, <fpage>39</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>46</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1270/jsbbs.51.39</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B40">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Nishikawa</surname> <given-names>T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Okazaki</surname> <given-names>K.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Uchino</surname> <given-names>T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Arakawa</surname> <given-names>K.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Nagamine</surname> <given-names>T.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1999</year>). <article-title>A molecular phylogeny of <italic>Lilium</italic> in the internal transcribed spacer region of nuclear ribosomal DNA</article-title>. <source>J. Mol. Evol</source>. <volume>49</volume>, <fpage>238</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>249</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/PL00006546</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">10441675</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B41">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Nylander</surname> <given-names>J. A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Ronquist</surname> <given-names>F.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Huelsenbeck</surname> <given-names>J. P.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Nieves-Aldrey</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>). <article-title>Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of combined data</article-title>. <source>Syst. Biol</source>. <volume>53</volume>, <fpage>47</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>67</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/10635150490264699</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">14965900</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B42">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Olmstead</surname> <given-names>R.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Palmer</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1992</year>). <article-title>A chloroplast DNA phylogeny of the Solanaceae: subfamilial relationships and character evolution</article-title>. <source>Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard</source>. <volume>79</volume>, <fpage>346</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>360</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2307/2399773</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B43">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Page</surname> <given-names>R. D.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1998</year>). <article-title>GeneTree: comparing gene and species phylogenies using reconciled trees</article-title>. <source>Bioinformatics</source> <volume>14</volume>, <fpage>819</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>820</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/bioinformatics/14.9.819</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">9918954</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B44">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Rokas</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Williams</surname> <given-names>B.</given-names></name> <name><surname>King</surname> <given-names>N.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Carroll</surname> <given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>). <article-title>Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies</article-title>. <source>Nature</source> <volume>425</volume>, <fpage>798</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>804</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1038/nature02053</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">14574403</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B45">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sanderson</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>McMahon</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2007</year>). <article-title>Inferring angiosperm phylogeny from EST data with widespread gene duplication</article-title>. <source>BMC Evol. Biol</source>. <volume>7</volume>:<fpage>S3</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/1471-2148-7-S1-S3</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17288576</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B46">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sang</surname> <given-names>T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Crawford</surname> <given-names>D. J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Stuessy</surname> <given-names>T. F.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1995</year>). <article-title>Documentation of reticulate evolution in peonies (Paeonia) using internal transcribed spacer sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA: implications for biogeography and concerted evolution</article-title>. <source>Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A</source>. <volume>92</volume>, <fpage>6813</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>6817</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1073/pnas.92.15.6813</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">7624325</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B47">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Shahin</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Van Kaauwen</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Esselink</surname> <given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Bargsten</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Van Tuyl</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Visser</surname> <given-names>R.</given-names></name> <etal/></person-group>. (<year>2012</year>). <article-title>Generation and analysis of expressed sequence tags in the extreme large genomes Lilium and Tulipa</article-title>. <source>BMC Genomics</source> <volume>13</volume>:<fpage>640</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/1471-2164-13-640</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23167289</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B48">
<citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Shimizu</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1987</year>). <source>The Lilies of Japan (In Japanese)</source>. <publisher-loc>Tokyo</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Seibundo Shinkosha</publisher-name>. <fpage>148</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>165</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B49">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Small</surname> <given-names>R. L.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Cronn</surname> <given-names>R. C.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wendel</surname> <given-names>J. F.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2004</year>). <article-title>Use of nuclear genes for phylogeny reconstruction in plants</article-title>. <source>Aust. Syst. Bot</source>. <volume>17</volume>, <fpage>145</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>170</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1071/SB03015</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B50">
<citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Stamatakis</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2006</year>). <article-title>Phylogenetic models of rate heterogeneity: a high performance computing perspective</article-title>, in <source>20th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, 2006. IPDPS 2006</source> (<publisher-loc>Los Alamitos, CA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>IEEE Computer Society Press</publisher-name>).</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B51">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Stamatakis</surname> <given-names>A.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Hoover</surname> <given-names>P.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Rougemont</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2008</year>). <article-title>A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML web servers</article-title>. <source>Syst. Biol</source>. <volume>57</volume>, <fpage>758</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>771</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/10635150802429642</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18853362</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B52">
<citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Swofford</surname> <given-names>D. L.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2003</year>). <source>PAUP<sup>&#x0002A;</sup>. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (<sup>&#x0002A;</sup>and Other Methods)</source>. Version 4. <publisher-loc>Sunderland, MA</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Sinauer Associates</publisher-name>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B53">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Tamura</surname> <given-names>K.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Peterson</surname> <given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Peterson</surname> <given-names>N.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Stecher</surname> <given-names>G.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Nei</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Kumar</surname> <given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2011</year>). <article-title>MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods</article-title>. <source>Mol. Biol. Evol</source>. <volume>28</volume>, <fpage>2731</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>2739</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/molbev/msr121</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21546353</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B54">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Vriesendorp</surname> <given-names>B.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Bakker</surname> <given-names>F. T.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>). <article-title>Reconstructing patterns of reticulate evolution in angiosperms: what can we do?</article-title> <source>Taxon</source> <volume>54</volume>, <fpage>593</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>604</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2307/25065417</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B55">
<citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>White</surname> <given-names>T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Bruns</surname> <given-names>T.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Lee</surname> <given-names>S.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Taylor</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>1990</year>). <article-title>Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics</article-title>, in <source>PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications</source>, eds <person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Innis</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Gelfand</surname> <given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Shinsky</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>White</surname> <given-names>T.</given-names></name></person-group> (<publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Academic Press</publisher-name>), <fpage>315</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>322</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B56">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wiens</surname> <given-names>J. J.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2005</year>). <article-title>Can incomplete taxa rescue phylogenetic analyses from long-branch attraction?</article-title> <source>Syst. Biol</source>. <volume>54</volume>, <fpage>731</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>742</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1080/10635150500234583</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">16243761</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B57">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Yue</surname> <given-names>J.-X.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Li</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Wang</surname> <given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Araki</surname> <given-names>H.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Tian</surname> <given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Yang</surname> <given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2010</year>). <article-title>Genome-wide investigation reveals high evolutionary rates in annual model plants</article-title>. <source>BMC Plant Biol</source>. <volume>10</volume>:<fpage>242</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/1471-2229-10-242</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21062446</pub-id></citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B58">
<citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zhang</surname> <given-names>J.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Esselink</surname> <given-names>G.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Che</surname> <given-names>D.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Foug&#x000E8;re-Danezan</surname> <given-names>M.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Arens</surname> <given-names>P.</given-names></name> <name><surname>Smulders</surname> <given-names>M. J. M.</given-names></name></person-group> (<year>2013</year>). <article-title>The diploid origins of allopolyploid rose species studied using single nucleotide polymorphism haplotypes flanking a microsatellite repeat</article-title>. <source>J. Horticult. Sci. Biotechnol</source>. <volume>88</volume>, <fpage>85</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>92</lpage>.</citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
