Hidden genetic diversity in the green alga Spirogyra (Zygnematophyceae, Streptophyta)
© Chen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
Received: 22 March 2012
Accepted: 7 May 2012
Published: 1 June 2012
The unbranched filamentous green alga Spirogyra (Streptophyta, Zygnemataceae) is easily recognizable based on its vegetative morphology, which shows one to several spiral chloroplasts. This simple structure falsely points to a low genetic diversity: Spirogyra is commonly excluded from phylogenetic analyses because the genus is known as a long-branch taxon caused by a high evolutionary rate.
We focused on this genetic diversity and sequenced 130 Spirogyra small subunit nuclear ribosomal DNA (SSU rDNA) strands of different origin. The resulting SSU rDNA sequences were used for phylogenetic analyses using complex evolutionary models (posterior probability, maximum likelihood, neighbor joining, and maximum parsimony methods). The sequences were between 1672 and 1779 nucleotides long. Sequence comparisons revealed 53 individual clones, but our results still support monophyly of the genus. Our data set did not contain a single slow-evolving taxon that would have been placed on a shorter branch compared to the remaining sequences. Out of 130 accessions analyzed, 72 showed a secondary loss of the 1506 group I intron, which formed a long-branched group within the genus. The phylogenetic relationship to the genus Spirotaenia was not resolved satisfactorily. The genetic distance within the genus Spirogyra exceeded the distances measured within any other genus of the remaining Zygnemataceae included in this study.
Overall, we define eight distinct clades of Spirogyra, one of them including the genus Sirogonium. A large number of non-homoplasious synapomorphies (NHS; 114 NHS in total) was found for Spirogyra (41 NHS) and for each clade (totaling 73 NHS). This emphasizes the high genetic diversity of this genus and the distance to the remaining Zygnematophyceae.
KeywordsZygnematales Zygnematophyceae Non-homoplasious synapomorphy Spirogyra Sirogonium Spirotaenia SSU rDNA Diversity
The genus Spirogyra is a member of the Zygnemataceae (Zygnematophyceae, Streptophyta). It comprises unbranched, filamentous green algae that are characterized by spirally coiled chloroplasts and sexual reproduction by means of conjugation. Spirogyra is commonly found in stagnant or slowly flowing freshwater habitats all over the world [1, 2]. It is sometimes referred to as an alga of roadside ditches and is frequently used in introductory biology courses  because it often occurs in huge abundances and is easy to address at the generic level. Species definition is mainly based on hypnozygote (also known as zygospores) morphology because the simple morphology in its vegetative state does not permit species recognition. In the latest monograph of Spirogyra published by Kadlubowska , 386 species are included. They were described using morphological traits, many of them based on a single finding. Ashraf and Godward  suggested that the mesospore wall structure analyzed using scanning electron microscopy should be added to the species descriptions because the taxonomy of Spirogyra at the light microscopical level remains confusing due to overlapping morphological traits . The morphological species concept, which is also applied in Spirogyra, is not proven to represent true biological species, nor does it provide any information on the ecological or genetic diversity in a genus. It also does not elucidate the phylogenetic relationships between taxa [7, 8]. Accordingly, the diversity of a genus remains unclear when estimates are based a single species concept. The problems arising for Spirogyra from findings without ripe hypnozygotes and the low success rate in inducing conjugation [9–13] call for other ways of addressing the issue of species delimitation and identification.
The Zygnematophyceae (Viridiplantae) represent the most species-rich lineage in the Streptophyta except for the embryophytic land plants . Conjugating green algae including the orders Desmidiales (Desmidiaceae, Peniaceae, Closteriaceae) and Zygnematales (Mesotaeniaceae, Zygnemataceae) form a unique and distinct group. Its taxonomic and phylogenetic separation from other algae is definitive [15–18], but relationships within this group have undergone numerous rearrangements and still remain unclear. The classification schemes within the Zygnematophyceae have been based on morphological traits such as cell size, wall structure, cellular organization or chloroplast structure [1, 14, 19–21], approaches that have been criticized in the past [22, 23]. The Zygnematales are distinguished from the Desmidiales by a smooth cell wall consisting of a single piece, lacking pores and ornamentations [19, 21], whereas Desmidiales have cell walls consisting of more than one piece with pores and ornaments [24, 25]. Filamentous forms are grouped in the family Zygnemataceae; the unicellular taxa form the family Mesotaeniaceae [4, 14, 21]. This classification, however, is artificial because polyphyly of both families has been proven by phylogenetic analyses [20, 22].
It remains unclear which growth form is primary and which derived . West [26, 27] described the ancestral state as filamentous, evolving towards unicellular forms, but Yamagishi  stated the opposite. Since the introduction of molecular markers, efforts have been made to solve this question [20, 23, 29], but the position of the genus Spirogyra within the Zygnematophyceae is not fully resolved. The evolutionary rate is one possible reason for this problem: it differs considerably among Zygnemataceaen genera . The uncertain position of Spirogyra in phylogenetic analyses is also attributed to the long-branch attraction (LBA) phenomenon . Some genera of the Zygnematophyceae originally defined based on morphology have been revealed as artificial based on molecular markers (e.g., Staurastrum;). Furthermore, small subunit nuclear ribosomal DNA (SSU rDNA) phylogenetic studies have often suffered from limited taxon sampling . When genera are represented by just one taxon, authors are unable to address the monophyly of the phylogenetic groups, either at the generic or at higher taxonomic levels. A low number of species within a genus also hinders proving monophyly . In order to assess the monophyly of the genus Spirogyra and to investigate whether the low diversity of its vegetative morphology is also reflected in molecular data, we sampled 130 strains of different origin. The position within the Zygnematophyceae and its long-branch position were evaluated by calculating phylogenetic trees with complex evolutionary models. Minimizing the Spirogyra LBA problem will also help define phylogenetic relationships among genera. Additionally, we searched for Spirogyra taxa with slower evolutionary rates by including isolates from a broad spatial and ecological range and different vegetative morphology. Sampling locations were chosen to cover different types of water bodies in various areas . Morphologically different Spirogyra filaments were isolated and cultivated for later use to check if the morphological differences are also reflected in phylogenetic groups. We focused on sampling the morphological diversity of the genus. SSU rRNA was chosen over ribulose-bisphosphate carboxylase large subunit gene (rbcL) because other studies already demonstrated the poor resolution of this marker in the Zygnematales and Desmidiales [3, 15].
Molecular phylogenetic analyses
When using an outgroup (Klebsormidium flaccidum and Coleochaete scutata; Figure 1a), the Spirotaenia clade was relocated basal to the rest of the Zygnematophyceae; the Spirogyra/Sirogonium clade formed a sister clade to the remaining Zygnematales and Desmidiales. The overall length of the branches and the classification of taxa to phylogenetic groups did not change. Within the clades, only few rearrangements could be observed in branches that received moderate or poor bootstrap/bayesian support in Figure 1 (data not shown).When testing tree topologies for the combined Zygnematophyceae – Spirogyra alignment, the “best tree“ derived from ML analysis (same as phylogeny in Figure 1) was not the overall best tree (Additional file 1: Table S1). The original ML tree (tree 1) and the user defined (UD) tree with Spirogyra relocated outside in ancestral position to the clades formed by the Desmidiales and the Zygnematales (tree 2) had the same likelihood and same Bayesian posterior probability values. These two trees were the only ones not rejected by the approximately unbiased test (AU); the tree representing Spirogyra as a sister to a Zygnematales clade (including the Spirotaenia clade; tree 3) was rejected by all tests except Shimodaira-Hasegawa test (SH) and weighted SH (WSH); Spirogyra within the Zygnematales clade (tree 4) was also rejected by all tests except SH. All other trees were significantly worse than the best tree at p ≤ 0.05.
In the Spirogyra phylogenetic tree (Figure 2), three sequences could not be placed within any clade: UTEX 1742, UTEX 1745 and 7075 share only a small portion of the identification patterns in base composition with adjacent clades. The major clades received very high bootstrap support, except for Clade E that was not supported by ML. The support for branches within clade B was poor due to high sequence similarity. Taxa with a secondary loss of the group I IC1 intron (marked in Figure 1 & 2) were clearly separated from the taxa containing the intron (clades A to D with intron; UTEX 1742, 7075, UTEX 1745, clades E to H without intron). The placement of Sirogonium in any other clade yielded significantly worse trees in all cases (tested with consel, Additional file 2: Table S2). Also, the relocation of the sequences previously not included in the clades into an adjoining clade was rejected with only one exception: tree 2 (relocation of UTEX 1742 and 7075 into clade E) was not rejected by SH test.
Sequence similarities in Spirogyra
130 Spirogyra nuclear encoded SSU rRNA sequences of strains from 79 different sites were sequenced for this study and, in total, 53 different SSU rDNA types (clones) were identified. Thirty sequence types were found once; the remaining 23 were represented by up to 11 accessions. Thirty-eight clones were found only at a single site and 19 more were obtained from up to 6 different sampling sites; 47 sites were represented by just one accession, 32 with up to 10 accessions. Sixty-seven sampling sites exhibited just one clone and 12 had up to 3 different clones.
Table of distances between Spirogyra clades; distance measure in the upper right part, pair wise differences in the lower left part
within clade range
Pair wise differences
Evolutionary rates in Zygnematophyceae
Summary of evolutionary models (chosen by Modeltest) and character states for all individual and combined data sets
No. Taxa included
Results of the Relative Rate Test carried out in GRate ; using only unambiguously aligned positions; not significant: N.S. ( p > 0.05; relative rates not significantly different at 5 % level). Asterisks: p = 0.05 > * > 0.01 > ** > 0.005 > *** (relative rates significantly different)
Secondary structure and NHS
We compared 130 SSU rDNA sequences of Spirogyra and found a high genetic diversity that was unexpected from the phenotypes. Our phylogenetic analyses revealed that Spirogyra splits into eight independent lineages within Zygnematophyceae (clades A-H; Figures 1, 2 and 3). In contrast to low phenotypic and high genetic variability in Spirogyra, the genus Staurastrum – one the most species-rich genera within the Desmidiaceae comprising around 700 species – showed great variability of morphological characters such as cell shape, size or cell wall ornamentation. In contrast, it yielded no information on phylogenetic relationships or genetic distance, which was interpreted to reflect recent radiation . Nonetheless, even a small number of species and their relatively uniform appearance may not guarantee generic monophyly (e.g., Spondylosium, Desmidium, Hyalotheca, Netrium, Cylindrocystis, Mesotaenium; ). Morphology apparently does not reflect genetic diversity in this group. Morphology is even less trustworthy in Spirogyra; the genus seems to be very uniform, but the species exhibit a wide overlap of character ranges [2, 6, 34, 35]. Furthermore, changes in ploidy level may occur, also affecting morphology [34, 36, 37].
The overall phylogenetic relationship of the Zygnematophyceae included in our analysis confirms other studies separating Desmidiaceae, Peniaceae and Closteriaceae from Zygnemataceae and Mesotaeniaceae, although the latter two are not resolved from each other [29, 30, 38]. Gontcharov et al.  already stated that Zygnematales appear to be a polyphyletic assemblage of independent clades. The families Mesotaeniaceae and Zygnemataceae are not monophyletic, proving that the cell wall traits (unornamented, unsegmented) are plesiomorphic .
When linking the results of our analysis to rbcL data presented by McCourt , the Desmidiales phylogeny is largely congruent, while the Mesotaeniaceae and Zygnemataceae (sensu Bold & Wynne ) show major differences. In McCourt’s analyses, the branch comprising Mougeotia/Mesotaenium and Cylindrocystis/Zygnemopsis is placed as an ancestor to other Zygnematophyceae; the branch Zygnema/Zygogonium and Spirogyra/Sirogonium/Spirotaenia emerges at a position basal to the Desmidiales. Contrarily, in our phylogenetic tree, the Zygnematales clade is a sister to the Desmidiales clade, although little bootstrap support is given and the genera Spirogyra/Sirogonium and Spirotaenia form individual clades within the Zygnematales. Those clades form distinct branches basal to the remaining Zygnematales branch due to different evolutionary rates of the SSU rDNA.
One reason to choose SSU rDNA over rbcL for phylogenetic analyses is that, as in the rbcL analyses of McCourt , phylogenetic relationships among the Desmidiales show rather poor resolution and do not always receive bootstrap support. Furthermore, in the phylogeny in Drummond’s analyses , members of the Zygnemataceae exhibit very long branches, whereas members of the genera Spirogyra and Sirogonium have very short branches indicating only little difference in sequence. This could lead to a misplacement of the genus Spirogyra, underestimate diversity in this genus and still yield the LBA problem .
The order Zygnematales pools taxa with differing evolutionary rates. On one hand, it is important to include these taxa into phylogenetic analyses to obtain an overview of major relationships. On the other hand, taxa with accelerated evolutionary rates often disturb the analyses. This might be the major reason for low bootstrap support in some of the clades we analyzed. In general, the genetic diversity in the Zygnematales at the generic level has been underestimated in favor of morphological traits that proved to be uninformative at the phylogenetic level . Some genera defined solely by morphological characters are probably artificial and polyphyletic . Thus, the species concept in this group needs urgent revision, and the generic concept requires scrutiny. Spirogyra is positioned ancestral to the remaining Zygnematales (except for Spirotaenia) in our phylogenetic tree. By testing the UDT against the best tree derived from ML analysis, we conclude that Spirogyra has to be placed outside of the Zygnematales clade; this position is definitely not caused by LBA, because no other position in the phylogenetic tree was accepted by UDT testing. Such a position is also supported by analyses of combined Zygnemataceae and Spirogyra 1506 group I intron alignments .Similar to the rbcL results of McCourt , our data do not support the hypothesis of monophyly for groups exhibiting a similar cell shape. In accordance to McCourt’s findings, but in contrast to previous SSU rDNA analyses , chloroplast shape seems to be a diagnostic trait: stellate and laminate chloroplast containing taxa form two sister clades [15, 40], yet without clear indication of the ancestral chloroplast type .
McCourt  stated that derived cell and chloroplast forms of placoderm desmids are better photosynthesizers and have achieved greater evolutionary success. This is difficult to reconcile with the ecological success of some of the so-called “primitive forms” such as Spirogyra, which is among the most widespread and species-rich conjugating green algae . High evolutionary rates seem to be more common in “primitive forms” such as Spirogyra, Zygnema and Mougeotia, whose evolutionary rates reportedly differ from other Zygnematales . Combined, we conclude that the lack of so-called derived cell and chloroplast forms is compensated for by a high evolutionary rate. This yields a large variety of genotypes and helps cover ecological niches more quickly.
C-U ratios are generally elevated compared to the remaining substitution rates (Table 2). This is because mutations from C to U or U to C in non-coding RNA are not detrimental, as the change in base pairs from G-U or G-C does not affect secondary structure. The biggest difference within the GTR + I + G model occurs between Spirogyra and the remaining Zygnematophyceae without Spirotaenia: Spirogyra shows a 1.9 units lower rate, which partly explains the different mutation rate compared to other algae. Both Spirogyra and Spirotaenia show a slightly elevated A-G substitution rate (approximately 50% and 16% higher than in the Zygnematophyceae data set, respectively). Spirogyra displays not only a higher evolutionary rate, but also a different pattern of base substitution rates compared to the remaining Zygnematales. Evolutionary rates within Spirogyra are more diverse than previously expected; significant differences among clades and sequences outside the same clade prevail. Finally, clades B to D, comprising sequences with the 1506 group I intron, form a group with fewer differences compared to clades E to H, comprising taxa without the intron.
The genus Spirogyra is clearly monophyletic. No sequences were found that had slower evolutionary rates or that could resolve the long branch reported in previous studies . The individual Spirogyra clades found in both of our data sets are essentially the same and well supported by bootstrap and PP values. Moreover, the phylogenetic relationship among those taxa exhibiting the secondary loss of the 1506 group I intron is identical. The Spirogyra clade branches are longer than the branches of most genera of Desmidiales. Two long branches within the genus Spirogyra are present in both trees; one separates clade A from the rest, and the other separates taxa with the secondary loss of the 1506 group I intron. Spirogyra taxa characterized by the absence of the 1506 group I zygnematalean intron form a distinct clade with no exception in both trees. This clearly indicates a single loss event. This explanation is supported by the accelerated evolutionary rate of the exon region of the SSU rDNA . A large number of differentiating NHS exists both within the genus Spirogyra (see results) and for each clade. This emphasizes the distinctness and genetic variety within the genus. In contrast, Gontcharov and Melkonian  found only very few NHS to circumscribe the different clades in Cosmarium.
Earlier hypotheses suggested the unicellular Spirotaenia as the ancestor of the filamentous Spirogyra[28, 40]. Although Spirotaenia shares many attributes of the genus Spirogyra such as chloroplast shape, absence of the 1506 group I intron  and an elevated evolutionary rate, molecular analyses have not proven or clarified its phylogenetic position. Our analyses revealed two well-supported branches at the base of the Zygnematalean clade, but the ancestral form remains unclear. Spirotaenia’s unusual position among the Zygnematales was already investigated by Gontcharov and Melkonian . Their results indicate no affiliation of the two genera . They therefore suggested excluding Spirotaenia from the Zygnematophyceae sensu stricto. Perhaps the same applies to the genus Spirogyra, but this remains to be proven by further genetic analyses. Sequence differences of the unambiguously aligned positions within Spirogyra reached 274 nt difference among the strains (a member of clade A and one of clade H), whereas the biggest difference found within the remaining taxa was 247 nt (Closterium ehrenbergii and Spirotaenia obscura). Also, the average, median and mode of the difference between sequences are higher in Spirogyra than in the remaining taxa considered. Within the clade, the range of pair-wise differences within the examined Desmidiales (Desmidiaceae, Peniaceae and Closteriaceae) ranges from 10 to 166 nt: this group includes 3 families and 7 genera. The relative distances within this group do not exceed 10.18. Within the genus Spirogyra, 14 individual distances between clades exhibit bigger values (Table 1). The same trend was observed in the remaining Zygnematales (Zygnemataceae and Mesotaeniaceae) – the range of pair-wise differences resulted in 27 to 173 nt, the respective distance values ranged from 1.65 to 10.63. The genetic differences within the genus Spirogyra, i.e. among the individual clades, exceed the differences of genera in either of the other groups. This calls for discussion and further investigation on whether Spirogyra still should be considered a single genus or rather be subdivided based on the clades we differentiated. This once again underlines the different evolutionary rates and reflects the great genetic variability of the genus Spirogyra.
Drummond et al.  found Spirogyra to be monophyletic, but still treated Sirogonium as a separate genus based on rbcL data. They were unable to discover morphological characters useful for a generic distinction, simply because the taxa are largely congruent (e.g., number of more or less loosely coiled chloroplasts, reproduction by conjugation and anisogamy of gametangial cells). The diagnostic characters are mainly based on the mode of conjugation: while Spirogyra develops conjugation tubes, Sirogonium filaments are bent towards each other and form knee-shaped bends, so-called geniculations. Drummond et al.  also considered the shape and ornamentation of the chloroplast margin as a diagnostic feature, but our observations showed this character to be variable and highly dependent on filament vitality. Other morphological characters such as chloroplast number or cell width are also known to be highly variable and could be explained by polyploidy [1, 34–37]. Other authors also found Spirogyra and Sirogonium forming a single lineage based on single gene analyses (rbcL, SSU rDNA) and combined data sets [15, 20, 22, 43]. Gontcharov stated in 2002 that the genus Sirogonium has to be rejected and S. sticticum (S. sticticum is the type species of the genus) has to be considered as a species within Spirogyra. Interestingly, Czurda  already suggested including Sirogonium into Spirogyra as one of four subgenera. We also found Spirogyra to be monophyletic and inseparable from Sirogonium. Monophyly of the Spirogyra/Sirogonium clade was determined in all our phylogenetic analyses, placing Sirogonium firmly in clade C. All alternative tree topologies relocating Sirogonium outside Spirogyra were significantly worse than the best tree uniting Spirogyra and Sirogonium. Sirogonium shares NHS signatures with the genus Spirogyra and the clade in which it is located.
Spirogyra is monophyletic, incorporating the former genus Sirogonium. Genetic diversity and genetic distances within Spirogyra exceed the diversity and distances found in other Zygnematophyceaen genera. Our results suggest pursuing the question whether Spirogyra should be split into several genera, one of them incorporating Sirogonium.
In the surveyed 130 sequences, 53 individually different clones were identified – more than was expected from the simple vegetative morphology. The genus forms eight well-supported clades that differ considerably in NHS pattern – ranging from 3 to 29 NHS for a clade. The genus Spirogyra itself exhibits 41 NHS (4 CBCs). Characterizing those clades will require additional studies considering phylogenetic studies on ITS2 secondary structure, hypnozygote morphology, vegetative characteristics and ecology.
Origin of organisms
Spirogyra clones used in this study originated from a field survey conducted in 2006 and 2007 . Single filaments were isolated by the author (CC) and incorporated into the Algenkultursammlung Wien (ASW). The non-axenic clones were maintained in 100 ml Erlenmeyer flasks with Desmids medium  at 18°C under low light conditions at a 16:8 l:d light cycle (provided by either Philips TLD 36 W/33 or Osram FQ 39 W/840 LUMLUX Cool White). Because only few strains could be identified at species level, cultures were labeled with a code for the corresponding sampling site and date (Additional file 5: Table S5). For our study, we considered 130 Spirogyra isolates from different sampling sites and with different vegetative morphologies to cover various ecological niches. Additionally, we included some strains from the UTEX culture collection (UTEX 1746 Spirogyra pratensis; UTEX 1273 S. crassispina; UTEX 1683 S. occidentalis; UTEX1742 S. juergensis; UTEX 1745 S. liana; UTEX 2495 S. maxima).
Prior to extraction the cultures were transferred into a defined mineral medium (modified Woods Hole medium; ). After 4 to 6 weeks, the algae were harvested with a sterile needle and put into a sterile 2 ml microcentrifuge tube. Samples were frozen at −80°C for at least 4 h and then lyophilized for at least 48 h to improve the DNA yield. Afterwards, the samples were placed in 2 ml Eppendorf tubes containing 5 to 7 glass beads (3 mm diam.) and ground with a homogenizing mill. Total DNA was extracted following a modified CTAB protocol ( modified after ).
DNA amplification and sequencing
List of primers used in this study
Sequence alignment and phylogenetic analysis
Sequences were aligned manually taking into account the secondary structure of the SSU rDNA . The alignment was refined by comparison of the secondary structure of the sequences. Secondary structure was determined via the Rensselaer bioinformatics web server using mfold . Only unambiguously aligned regions of the sequences were used for analyses; gap-rich regions were excluded. Two different data sets were analyzed: (1) the SSU alignment of 33 Zygnematophyceaen taxa (including 12 Spirogyra sequences representing the different clades) and (2) the SSU alignment of 55 Spirogyra sequences (clones with identical sequences were represented by only one sequence). The combined Zygnematophyceaen SSU dataset consisted of 1720 unambiguously aligned bases, the Spirogyra dataset of 1645 such bases.
The phylogenetic trees presented were inferred by ML settings using PAUP* 4.0b10 , and the best models were chosen according to the Akaike Information Criterion by Modeltest 3.7 [52, 53]. To test for the best evolutionary model for the analyses, the log-likelihood values of 56 models using Modeltest 3.7 were compared. No outgroup was applied and unrooted phylogenies were used . This was done to avoid LBA sensu Philippe  caused by unsuitable taxa as outgroups. This approach also follows Gontcharov’s argument that monophyly of the Zygnematophyceae is undoubted but that its position within the Streptophyta is unclear and therefore no suitable outgroup can be chosen. The combined Zygnematophyceaen SSU dataset (1) was also analyzed together with an outgroup (Klebsormidium flaccidum and Coleochaete scutata) to check for LBA among clades. For the Zygnematophyceaen alignment analyses, the TrN + I + G model was chosen; for the Spirogyra alignment the GTR + I + G was chosen by Modeltest. Individual Spirogyra clades were labeled with letters A to H in the sequence from basal to derived. The Spirogyra alignment was analyzed unrooted to avoid LBA phenomena due to different evolutionary rates . Only individual sequences were used for analyses to reduce computational effort. Bayesian inference (PP) was calculated using MrBayes 3.1.2. [54, 55] using 3 million generations, sampling every 100 generations and MCMC chains = 4. All trees below the burnin value of 0.01 were discarded as burnin, the consensus tree was calculated using PAUP*. The robustness of the trees was assessed by bootstrap support values. These were calculated using the corresponding evolutionary model chosen by Modeltest by ML (100 replicates), distance NJ (1000 replicates), and MP (1000 replicates) methods using the accordant settings/evolutionary model for each dataset. Insignificant values were not included in figures (PP < 0.95, ML, NJ, MP < 50%). Details of the corresponding evolutionary models and Bayesian analyses are given in the legend of the accordant figures and in Table 2.
Additionally, a distance matrix was calculated using PAUP* to evaluate the genetic distances among the Spirogyra clades (Table 1). The value was obtained by dividing the number of differing bases by the number of total (=aligned) bases. Values were transformed to % values, so numbers near 0 indicate a high identity or short distance; values approximating 100 indicate low similarity and large distance. Relative rate tests were carried out among all genera and for all accessions individually used for phylogeny in GRate 0.4 (http://bioinfweb.info/Software/GRate; ).
Tree topology tests
UD trees were generated manually based on the “best tree” (derived from ML analysis; same topology as ML phylogeny used for Figure 1) using TreeView 1.6.6 . To compare the UD-trees with the “best tree”, the alignment was loaded into PAUP and site-wise log-likelihood values for each tree were calculated. The result was used as input for the program CONSEL v0.1 k , calculating probability values according to KH , SH (, both weighted = w and unweighted), and AU using the multiscale bootstrap technique  (Additional file 1: Table S1 and Additional file 2: S2).
The secondary structure of the SSU rDNA (Figure 3) was modeled after Wuyts , following the same numbering pattern. To find all NHS, the method described by Marin et al.  was applied. To identify genetic characteristics for the different groups (synapomorphic signatures; ), the secondary structure in an alignment of Zygnematophyceae and all sequenced Spirogyra clones was compared, and NHS and CBCs were determined according to Marin et al. . The analysis was performed with two aims: (1) to find NHS for the genus Spirogyra and (2) to identify NHS for each individual clade within the genus Spirogyra. For both, the two NHS criteria were applied: (1) absence of convergent evolution outside the clade and (2) strict conservation within the clade (Additional file 4: Table S4).
alternative tree topology tested
approximately unbiased test
- (H-) CBC (Hemi-):
Compensatory Base Change
long branch attraction
ribulose-bisphosphate carboxylase large subunit gene
nuclear ribosomal DNA
tree user defined tree
This study was supported by the Austrian Science Fund, project number P18465.
- Hoshaw RW, McCourt RM: The Zygnemataceae (Chlorophyta): A twenty-year update of research. Phycologia. 1988, 27 (4): 511-548. 10.2216/i0031-8884-27-4-511.1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hainz R, Wöber C, Schagerl M: The relationship between Spirogyra (Zygnematophyceae, Streptophyta) filament type groups and environmental conditions in Central Europe. Aquat Bot. 2009, 91 (3): 173-180. 10.1016/j.aquabot.2009.05.004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Drummond CS, Hall J, Karol KG, Delwiche CF, McCourt RM: Phylogeny of Spirogyra and Sirogonium (Zygnematophyceae) based on rbcL sequence data. J Phycol. 2005, 41 (5): 1055-1064. 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2005.00130.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kadlubowska JZ: Conjugatophyceae I - Zygnemales. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa, Chlorophyta VIII. Edited by: Ettl H, Gerloff H, Heynig H, Mollenhauer D. 1984, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Ashraf M, Godward MBE: Ultrastructure and chemistry of the zygospore wall of Spirogyra. Ann Bot. 1980, 46: 485-487.Google Scholar
- Kim J-H, Kim YH, Lee IKL: Morphotaxonomy of the Genus Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae, Chlorophyta) in Korea. Algae. 2004, 19 (2): 91-105.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Baum D: Phylogenetic species concepts. TREE. 1992, 7 (1): 1-2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hey J, Waples RS, Arnold ML, Butlin RK, Harrison RG: Understanding and confronting species uncertainty in biology and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2003, 18 (11): 597-603. 10.1016/j.tree.2003.08.014.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Simons J, Van Beem P, De Vries PJR: Induction of conjugation and spore formation in species of Spirogyra (Chlorophyceae, Zygnematales). Acta Bot Neerl. 1984, 33 (3): 323-334.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Czurda V: Zygnemales. 1932, Gustav Fischer, JenaGoogle Scholar
- Czurda V: Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Sexualverhältnisse der Zygnemalen. Sonderabdruck aus "Beihefte zum Bot Centralbl". 1930, 47 Abt.I: 15-68.Google Scholar
- Czurda V: Experimentelle Analyse der kopulationsauslösenden Bedingungen bei Mikroorganismen - 1. Untersuchungen an Algen (Spirogyra, Zygnema und Hyalotheca). Sonderabdruck aus "Beihefte zum Bot Centralbl". 1933, 51 Abt. I: 711-761.Google Scholar
- Zwirn M: Sexuelle Fortpflanzung und taxonomische Fragestellungen bei der Süßwasseralge Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae, Streptopyhta). 2010, University of Vienna, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Gerrath JF: The biology of desmids: A decade of progress. 1993, Biopress, BristolGoogle Scholar
- McCourt RM, Karol KG, Bell J, Helm-Bychowski KM, Grajewska A, Wojciechowski MF, Hoshaw RW: Phylogeny of the conjugating green algae (Zygnemophyceae) based on rbcL sequences. J Phycol. 2000, 36 (4): 747-758. 10.1046/j.1529-8817.2000.99106.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fott FE: Algenkunde, vol. 1935, V.E.B. Fischer, Jena, 2Google Scholar
- Round FE: The taxonimy of the Chlorophyta. II. Br PhycolJ. 1971, 6: 235-264.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bold HC, Wynne MJ: Introduction to the algae, vol. 1985, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Vol. 2Google Scholar
- Prescott GW, Croasdale HT, Vinyard WC: Desmidilaes. I. Saccodermae, Mesotaeniaceae. 1972, New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Gontcharov AA, Marin B, Melkonian M: Molecular phylogeny of conjugating green algae (Zygnemophyceae, Streptophyta) inferred from SSU rDNA sequence comparisons. J Mol Evol. 2002, 56 (1): 89-104.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Transeau EN: The Zygnemataceae (Fresh-water conjugate algae). 1951, The Ohio State University Press, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
- Gontcharov AA, Marin B, Melkonian M: Are combined analyses better than single gene phylogenies? A case study using SSU rDNA and rbcL sequence comparisons in the Zygnematophyceae (Streptophyta). Mol Biol Evol. 2004, 21 (3): 612-624.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- McCourt RM: Green algal phylogeny. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 1995, 10 (4): 159-163. 10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89027-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mix M: Die Feinstruktur der Zellwände bei Mesotaeniaceae und Gonatozygaceae mit einer vergleichenden Betrachtung der verschiedenen Wandtypen der Conjugatophyceae und über deren systematischen Wert. Arch Microbiol. 1972, 81 (3): 197-220.Google Scholar
- Mix M: Die Feinstruktur der Zellwände der Conjugaten und ihre systematische Bedeutung. Beih Nova Hedwigia. 1975, 42: 179-194.Google Scholar
- West GS: On variation in the Desmidiaceae and its bearing on their classification. JLinnSoc. 1899, 34: 376-415.Google Scholar
- West GS: A treatise on the British freshwater alga. 1904, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yamagishi T: Classification of the Zygnemataceae. Sci Rep Tokyo Kyoiku Daigaku B. 1963, 11: 191-210.Google Scholar
- Besendahl A, Bhattacharya D: Evolutionary analyses of small-subunit rDNA coding regions and the 1506 group I introns of the Zygnematales (Charophyceae, Streptophyta). J Phycol. 1999, 35 (3): 560-569. 10.1046/j.1529-8817.1999.3530560.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bhattacharya D, Damberger S, Surek B, Melkonian M, Bhattacharya D: Primary and secondary structure analyses of the rDNA group-I introns of the Zygnematales (Charophyta). Curr Genet. 1996, 29 (3): 282-286. 10.1007/BF02221559.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Philippe H: Opinion: long branch attraction and protist phylogeny. Protist. 2000, 151 (4): 307-316. 10.1078/S1434-4610(04)70029-2.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gontcharov AA, Melkonian M: Molecular phylogeny of Staurastrum Meyen ex Ralfs and related genera (Zygnematophyceae, Streptophtya) based on coding and noncoding rDNA sequence comparisons. J Phycol. 2005, 41 (4): 887-899. 10.1111/j.0022-3646.2005.04165.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gontcharov AA, Melkonian M: A Study of Conflict between Molecular Phylogeny and Taxonomy in the Desmidiaceae (Streptophyta, Viridiplantae): Analyses of 291 rbcL Sequences. Protist. 2011, 162 (2): 253-267. 10.1016/j.protis.2010.08.003.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Allen MA: The biology of a species complex in Spirogyra. 1958, Bloomington, Univ.Microfilms, Ann. Arbor., Mich, Indiana UniversityGoogle Scholar
- McCourt RM, Hoshaw RW: Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic Groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae: Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Syst Bot. 1990, 15 (1): 69-78. 10.2307/2419017.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hoshaw RW, Wang J-C, McCourt RM, Hull HM: Ploidal changes in clonal cultures of Spirogyra communis and implications for species definition. Am J Bot. 1985, 72 (7): 1005-1011. 10.2307/2443443.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hoshaw RW, Wells CV, McCourt RM: A polyploid species complex in Spirogyra maxima (Chlorophyta, Zygnemataceae), a species with large chromosomes. J Phycol. 1987, 23 (s2): 267-273. 10.1111/j.1529-8817.1987.tb04134.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bhattacharya D, Surek B, Rüsing M, Damberger S, Melkonian M: Group I introns are inherited through common ancestry in the nuclear-encoded rRNA of Zygnematales (Charophyceae). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994, 91 (21): 9916-9920. 10.1073/pnas.91.21.9916.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chen C, Schagerl M: Slow evolution of 1506 group I intron in Spirogyra LINK 1820 (Zygnematophyceae, Streptophyta), a fast evolving lineage in the Zygnemataceae. Fottea. 2012, 12 (2): 255-272.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Randhawa MS: Zygnemaceae. 1959, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
- Palla E: Über eine neue pyrenoidlose Art und Gattung der Conjugaten. Ber d Deutsch Bot Ges. 1894, 12: 228-236.Google Scholar
- Gontcharov AA, Melkonian M: In search of monophyletic taxa in the family Desmidiaceae (Zygnematophyceae, Viridiplantae): the genus Cosmarium. Am J Bot. 2008, 95 (9): 1079-1095. 10.3732/ajb.0800046.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gontcharov AA, Melkonian M: Unusual position of the genus Spirotaenia (Zygnematophyceae) among streptophytes revealed by SSU rDNA and rbcL sequence comparisons. Phycologia. 2004, 43 (1): 105-113. 10.2216/i0031-8884-43-1-105.1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kusel-Fetzmann E, Schagerl M: Verzeichniss der Sammlung von Algenkulturen an der Abteilung für Hydrobotanik am Institut für Pflanzenphysiologie der Universität Wien. Phyton. 1993, 33: 209-234.Google Scholar
- Tel-zur N, Abbo S, Myslabodski D, Mizrahi Y: Modified CTAB Procedure for DNA Isolation from Epiphytic Cacti of the Genera Hylocereus and Selenicereus (Cactaceae). Plant Mol Biol Rep. 1999, 17 (3): 249-254. 10.1023/A:1007656315275.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Russell A, Samuel R, Rupp B, Barfuss MHJ, Šafran M, Besendorfer V, Chase MW: Phylogenetics and cytology of a pantropical orchid genus Polystachya (Polystachyinae; Vandeae; Orchidaceae); evidence from plastid DNA sequence data. Taxon. 2009, 59 (2): 389-404.Google Scholar
- Marin B, Klingberg M, Melkonian M: Phylogenetic relationships among the Cryptophyta: analyses of nuclear-encoded SSU rRNA sequences support the monophyly of extant plastid-containing lineages. Protist. 1998, 149 (3): 265-276. 10.1016/S1434-4610(98)70033-1.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pröschold T, Marin B, Schlösser UG, Melkonian M: Molecular phylogeny and taxonomic revision of Chlamydomonas (Chlorophyta). I. Emendation of Chlamydomonas Ehrenberg and Chloromonas Gobi, and description of Oogamochlamys gen. nov. and Lobochlamys gen. nov. Protist. 2001, 152 (4): 265-300. 10.1078/1434-4610-00068.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wuyts J, De Rijk P, Van de Peer Y, Pison G, Rousseeuw P, De Wachter R: Comparative analysis of more than 3000 sequences reveals the existence of two pseudoknots in area V4 of eukaryotic small subunit ribosomal RNA. Nucl Acids Res. 2000, 28 (23): 4698-4708. 10.1093/nar/28.23.4698.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zuker M: Mfold web server for nucleic acid folding and hybridization prediction. Nucl Acids Res. 2003, 31 (13): 3406-3415. 10.1093/nar/gkg595.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Swofford DL: PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods). 4.0b10 edn. 2003, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
- Posada D, Buckley T: Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: advantages of the AIC and Bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. Syst Biol. 2004, 53: 793-808. 10.1080/10635150490522304.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Posada D, Crandall K: Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics. 1998, 14 (9): 817-818. 10.1093/bioinformatics/14.9.817.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F: MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Bioinformatics. 2001, 17: 754-755. 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP: MRBAYES 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2003, 19: 1572-1574. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Müller K, Borsch T, Legendre L, Porembski S, Theisen I, Barthlott W: Evolution of Carnivory in Lentibulariaceae and the Lamiales. Plant Biology. 2004, 6 (4): 477-490. 10.1055/s-2004-817909.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Page RDM: TREEVIEW: An application to display phylogenetic trees on personal computers. Comput Applic Biosci. 1996, 12: 357-358.Google Scholar
- Shimodaira H, Hasegawa M: CONSEL: for assessing the confidence of phylogenetic tree selection. Bioinformatics. 2001, 17 (12): 1246-1247. 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.12.1246.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kishino H, Hasegawa M: Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order in Hominoidea. J Mol Evol. 1989, 29 (2): 170-179. 10.1007/BF02100115.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Shimodaira H, Hasegawa M: Multiple comparisons of log-likelihoods with applications to phylogenetic inference. Mol Biol Evol. 1999, 16 (8): 1114-1116. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a026201.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Shimodaira H: An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection. Syst Biol. 2002, 51 (3): 492-508. 10.1080/10635150290069913.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Marin B, Palm A, Klingberg M, Melkonian M: Phylogeny and taxonomic revision of plastid-containing Euglenophytes based on SSU rDNA sequence comparisons and synapomorphic signatures in the SSU rRNA secondary structure. Protist. 2003, 154 (1): 99-145. 10.1078/143446103764928521.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Luo W, Pflugmacher S, Pröschold T, Walz N, Krienitz L: Genotype versus Phenotype Variability in Chlorella and Micractinium (Chlorophyta, Trebouxiophyceae). Protist. 2006, 157 (3): 315-333. 10.1016/j.protis.2006.05.006.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.