Scholarlink

<p>The order Characiformes, one of the most diverse Neotropical fish groups, exhibits striking ecological and morphological variation, as well as wide genome size (GS) diversity. However, the evolutionary and ecological drivers of GS variation in this group remain unclear. Here, we analyzed GS data for 63 species using phylogenetic comparative methods. A significant phylogenetic signal (Blomberg’s K = 0.8, p = 0.001) indicated that GS is partially constrained by shared ancestry. Among the tested predictors, the trophic niche was the only factor significantly associated with GS (p = 0.005), with omnivorous and piscivorous species exhibiting reduced genome sizes. Geographic range showed a negative marginal trend, while body size and latitude had no significant effects. The best-fitting evolutionary model was Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (OU), supporting the role of stabilizing selection in GS evolution. Disparity-through-time analysis revealed a recent increase in GS diversification (MDI = 0.106), suggesting late evolutionary shifts potentially linked to ecological transitions. Ancestral state reconstruction showed multiple independent origins of trophic strategies across the phylogeny. Together, these results highlight a complex interplay between phylogenetic constraints and ecological selection in shaping genome architecture. Our findings underscore the importance of integrating genomic, ecological, and evolutionary frameworks to better understand genome size evolution in Neotropical fishes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Phylogenetic and ecological processes shape genome size variation in the order Characiformes

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月4日

查看全文
  • Ruth Carolynne dos Santos Melo,
  • Maria Carolina Lima Farias,
  • Alany Itala Pontes,
  • Luciano Domingos,
  • Milene Kelly,
  • Uedson Pereira Jacobina

摘要

The order Characiformes, one of the most diverse Neotropical fish groups, exhibits striking ecological and morphological variation, as well as wide genome size (GS) diversity. However, the evolutionary and ecological drivers of GS variation in this group remain unclear. Here, we analyzed GS data for 63 species using phylogenetic comparative methods. A significant phylogenetic signal (Blomberg’s K = 0.8, p = 0.001) indicated that GS is partially constrained by shared ancestry. Among the tested predictors, the trophic niche was the only factor significantly associated with GS (p = 0.005), with omnivorous and piscivorous species exhibiting reduced genome sizes. Geographic range showed a negative marginal trend, while body size and latitude had no significant effects. The best-fitting evolutionary model was Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (OU), supporting the role of stabilizing selection in GS evolution. Disparity-through-time analysis revealed a recent increase in GS diversification (MDI = 0.106), suggesting late evolutionary shifts potentially linked to ecological transitions. Ancestral state reconstruction showed multiple independent origins of trophic strategies across the phylogeny. Together, these results highlight a complex interplay between phylogenetic constraints and ecological selection in shaping genome architecture. Our findings underscore the importance of integrating genomic, ecological, and evolutionary frameworks to better understand genome size evolution in Neotropical fishes.