Open Access

ITS2 data corroborate a monophyletic chlorophycean DO-group (Sphaeropleales)

  • Alexander Keller1,
  • Tina Schleicher1,
  • Frank Förster1,
  • Benjamin Ruderisch1,
  • Thomas Dandekar1,
  • Tobias Müller1 and
  • Matthias Wolf1Email author
Contributed equally
BMC Evolutionary Biology20088:218

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-8-218

Received: 12 March 2008

Accepted: 25 July 2008

Published: 25 July 2008

Abstract

Background

Within Chlorophyceae the ITS2 secondary structure shows an unbranched helix I, except for the 'Hydrodictyon' and the 'Scenedesmus' clade having a ramified first helix. The latter two are classified within the Sphaeropleales, characterised by directly opposed basal bodies in their flagellar apparatuses (DO-group). Previous studies could not resolve the taxonomic position of the 'Sphaeroplea' clade within the Chlorophyceae without ambiguity and two pivotal questions remain open: (1) Is the DO-group monophyletic and (2) is a branched helix I an apomorphic feature of the DO-group? In the present study we analysed the secondary structure of three newly obtained ITS2 sequences classified within the 'Sphaeroplea' clade and resolved sphaeroplealean relationships by applying different phylogenetic approaches based on a combined sequence-structure alignment.

Results

The newly obtained ITS2 sequences of Ankyra judayi, Atractomorpha porcata and Sphaeroplea annulina of the 'Sphaeroplea' clade do not show any branching in the secondary structure of their helix I. All applied phylogenetic methods highly support the 'Sphaeroplea' clade as a sister group to the 'core Sphaeropleales'. Thus, the DO-group is monophyletic. Furthermore, based on characteristics in the sequence-structure alignment one is able to distinguish distinct lineages within the green algae.

Conclusion

In green algae, a branched helix I in the secondary structure of the ITS2 evolves past the 'Sphaeroplea' clade. A branched helix I is an apomorph characteristic within the monophyletic DO-group. Our results corroborate the fundamental relevance of including the secondary structure in sequence analysis and phylogenetics.

Background

Taxonomists face inconsistent or even contradictory clues when they examine the affiliation of organisms to higher taxonomic groupings. Several characters may yield alternative hypotheses explaining their evolutionary background. This also applies to the taxonomic position of the Sphaeropleaceae [123]. Different authors affiliate the green algal family by morphological characters to either ulvophytes or chlorophytes, until amendatory Deason et al. [10] suggested that the Neochloridaceae, the Hydrodictyaceae and the Sphaeropleaceae should be grouped as Sphaeropleales within the chlorophytes, since all of them have motile biflagellate zoospores with a direct-opposite (DO) confirmation of basal bodies.

Subsequently, other taxonomic lineages (the 'Ankistrodesmus' clade, the 'Bracteacoccus' clade, the 'Pseudomuriella' clade, Pseudoschroederia, the 'Scenedesmus' clade, Schroederia and the 'Zofingiensis' clade) were added to this biflagellate DO group, because they show molecular affiliation to either Neochloridaceae or Hydrodictyaceae [24].

Although nowadays most authors agree that the DO group is monophyletic, until now no study pinpointed the taxonomic linkage of the name-giving 'Sphaeroplea' clade to the remaining 'core Sphaeropleales' persuasively with genetic evidence [6, 23], i.e. the sister clade remains unclear [15, 24]. Likewise, with respect to morphology, studies of 18S and 26S rRNA gene sequences neither resolve the basal branching patterns within the Chlorophyceae with high statistical power nor corroborate a monophyletic biflagellate DO group without ambiguity [6, 23].

Müller et al. [25] obtained moderate statistical support for the close relationship of the 'Sphaeroplea' clade and the 'core Sphaeropleales' with profile distances of 18S and 26S rDNA. In this study we followed and expanded their methodology with a very different phylogenetic marker. The internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2), the region of ribosomal RNA between the 5.8S rRNA gene and the large subunit (26S rDNA) has proven to be an appropriate marker for the study of small scale phylogenies of close relatives [2629]. The sequence is in contrast to the bordering regions of ribosomal subunits evolutionary not conserved, thus genetic differentiation is detectable even in closely related groups of organisms. By contrast, the secondary structure seems to be well conserved and thus provides clues for higher taxonomic studies [27, 3033]. Secondary structure information is furthermore especially interesting within the Chlorophyceae, because van Hannen et al. [34] described an uncommon branching of ITS2 helix 1 within the genera Desmodesmus, Hydrodictyon [35] and Scenedesmus. It is not known when this feature evolved and whether it is, as we expect, an apomorphic feature for the DO-group. It is obvious that phylogenetic statements should be improvable by inclusion of structural information in common sequence analysis. For example, Grajales et al. [36] calculated morphometric matrices from ITS2 secondary structures for phylogenetic analyses, but treated information of sequence and structure as different markers. Here we combine sequence with structural information in just one analysis. Aside from the biological problem, we address the pivotal question of a methodological pipeline for sequence-structure phylogenetics using rDNA data.

Methods

DNA extraction, amplification and sequencing

Extraction of genomic DNA from cultured cells of Ankyra judayi, Atractomorpha porcata and Sphaeroplea annulina was done using Dynabeads® (DNA DIRECT Universal, Dynal Biotech, Oslo, Norway) according to the manufacturer's protocol. PCR reactions were performed in a 50 μl reaction volume containing 25 μl FastStart PCR Master (Roche Applied Science), 5 μl gDNA and 300 nM of the primers ITS3 (5'-GCA TCG ATG AAG AAC GCA GC-3') and ITS4 (5'-TCC TCC GCT TAT TGA TAT GC-3') designed by White et al. [37].

Cycling conditions for amplification consisted of 94°C for 10 min, 30 cycles of 94°C for 30 s, 50°C for 30 s and 72°C for 45 s, followed by a final extension step of 10 min at 72°C. PCR products were analysed by 3% agarose gel electrophoresis and ethidium bromide staining.

PCR probes where purified with the PCR Purificaton Kit (Qiagen) and where quantified by spectrometry. Each sequencing probe was prepared in an 8 μl volume containing 20 ng DNA and 1.25 μM Primer. Sequencing was carried out using an annealing temperature of 50°C with the sequencer Applied Biosystems QST 3130 Genetic Analyzer by the Institute of Hygiene and Microbiology (Würzburg, Germany).

ITS2 secondary structure prediction

ITS2 secondary structures of the three newly obtained sequences were folded with the help of RNAstructure [38] and afterwards manually corrected. All available 788 chlorophycean ITS2 sequences were obtained from the NCBI nucleotide database. The ITS2 secondary structure of Atractomorpha porcata was used as template for homology modelling. Homology modelling was performed by using the custom modelling option as provided with the ITS2-Database [3033] (identity matrix and 50% threshold for the helix transfer). Forty-nine species representing the chlorophycean diversity were retained and used as comparative taxa in inferring phylogenies (Table 1). For this taxon sampling, accurate secondary structures of sequences were now folded by RNAstructure and additionally corrected using Pseudoviewer 3 [39]. We standardized start and end of all helices according to the optimal folding of the newly obtained sequences.
Table 1

Chlorophyte species used for this investigation.

Clade

Species

Strain

GenBank

'Sphaeroplea '

Ankyra judayi (G.M. Smith) Fott 1957

SAG 17.84

EU352800

 

Atractomorpha porcata Hoffman 1984 strain

SAG 71.90

EU352803

 

Sphaeroplea annulina (Roth) C. Agardh 1824

SAG 377.1a

EU352801

 

Sphaeroplea annulina (Roth) C. Agardh 1824

SAG 377.1e

EU352802

'Dunaliella'

Haematococcus droebakensis Wollenweber 1908

-

U66981

 

Dunaliella parva Lerche 1937

-

DQ116746

 

Dunaliella salina (Dunal) Teodoresco 1905

CCAP 19/18

EF473746

'Hydrodictyon '

Hydrodictyon africanum Yamanouchi 1913

UTEX 782

AY779861

 

Hydrodictyon patenaeforme Pocock

CCAP 236/3

AY577736

 

Hydrodictyon reticulatum (Linnaeus) B. de St.-Vincent 1824

CBS

AY779862

 

Pediastrum braunii Wartmann 1862

SAG 43.85

AY577756

 

Pediastrum duplex Meyen 1829

UTEX 1364

AY779868

 

Pseudopediastrum boryanum (Raciborski) Sulek 1969

UTEX 470

AY779866

 

Sorastrum spinulosum Nägeli 1849

UTEX 2452

AY779872

 

Stauridium tetras (Ehrenberg) Ralfs 1844

EL 0207 CT

AY577762

'Oedogonium'

Bulbochaete hiloensis (Nordstedt) Tiffany 1937

-

AY962677

 

Oedogonium cardiacum (Hassall) Wittrock 1870

-

AY962675

 

Oedogonium nodulosum Wittrock 1872

-

DQ078301

 

Oedogonium oblongum Wittrock 1872

-

AY962681

 

Oedogonium undulatum (Brébisson) A. Braun 1854

-

DQ178025

'Reinhardtii'

Chlamydomonas incerta Pascher 1927

SAG 81.72

AJ749625

 

Chlamydomonas komma Skuja 1934

-

U66951

 

Chlamydomonas petasus Ettl

SAG 11.45

AJ749615

 

Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Dangeard 1888

CC-620

AJ749638

 

Chlamydomonas typica Deason & Bold 1960

SAG 61.72

AJ749622

 

Eudorina elegans Ehrenberg 1831

ASW 107

AF486524

 

Eudorina unicocca G.M. Smith 1930

UTEX 1215

AF486525

 

Gonium octonarium Pocock 1955

Tex

AF054424

 

Gonium pectorale O.F. Müller 1773

Chile K

AF054440

 

Gonium quadratum E. G. Pringsheim ex H. Nozaki

Cal 3-3

AF182430

 

Pandorina morum (O.F. Müller) Bory de Saint-Vincent 1824

Chile

AF376737

 

Volvox dissipatrix (Shaw) Printz

-

U67020

 

Volvox rousseletii G.S.West

-

U67025

 

Volvulina steinii Playfair 1915

-

U67034

 

Yamagishiella unicocca (Rayburn & Starr) Nozaki 1992

ASW 05129

AF098181

'Scenedesmus'

Desmodesmus abundans (Kirchner) Hegewald 2000

UTEX 1358

AJ400494

 

Desmodesmus bicellularis (Chodat) An, Friedl & Heg. 1999

CCAP 276/14

AJ400498

 

Desmodesmus communis (Hegewald) Hegewald 2000

UTEX 76

AM410660

 

Desmodesmus elegans (Hortobágyi) Heg. & Van. 2007

Heg 1976–28

AM228908

 

Desmodesmus opoliensis (P.G. Richter) Hegewald 2000

EH 10

AM410655

 

Desmodesmus pleiomorphus (Hindák) Hegewald 2000

UTEX 1591

AM410659

 

Desmodesmus quadricauda (Turpin) Hegewald

-

AJ400495

 

Scenedesmus acuminatus (Lagerheim) Chodat 1902

UTEX 415

AJ249511

 

Scenedesmus acutiformis (B. Schröder) F. Hindák 1990

SAG 276.12

AJ237953

 

Scenedesmus basiliensis Chodat 1926

UTEX 79

AJ400489

 

Scenedesmus dimorphus (Turpin) Kützing 1833

UTEX 417

AJ400488

 

Scenedesmus longus Meyen 1829 ex Ralfs

NIOO-MV5

AJ400506

 

Scenedesmus obliquus (Turpin) Kützing 1833

Tow 9/21P-1W

DQ417568

 

Scenedesmus pectinatus Meyen 1828

An 111a

AJ237954

 

Scenedesmus platydiscus (G.M. Smith) Chodat 1926

UTEX 2457

AJ400491

 

Scenedesmus raciborskii Woloszynska 1914

An 1996–5

AJ237952

 

Scenedesmus regularis Svirenko

Heg 1998–2

AY170857

 

Scenedesmus wisconsinensis (G.M. Smith) Chodat 1996

An 41

AJ237950

Listed is the current clade classification of the species [69, 70, 24] and the GenBank accession numbers of the analyzed sequences. The four newly obtained sequences are of the 'Sphaeroplea' clade.

Alignment and phylogenetic analyses

Using 4SALE [40, 41] with its ITS2 specific scoring matrix, we automatically aligned sequences and structures simultaneously. Sequence-structure alignment is available at the ITS2 database supplements page. For the complete alignment we tested for appropriate models of nucleotide substitution using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) as implemented in Modeltest [42]. The following PAUPblock was used for all maximum likelihood based phylogenetic analyses with PAUP* [43]: Lset Base = (0.2299 0.2415 0.2152) Nst = 6 Rmat = (1.4547 3.9906 2.0143 0.1995 3.9906) Rates = gamma Shape = 1.1102 Pinvar = 0.0931;. A maximum likelihood (ML) analysis was performed with a heuristic search (ten random taxon addition replicates) and nearest neighbour interchange (NNI) [44].

Maximum parsimony (MP) [45] was accomplished with gaps treated as missing data and all characters coded as "unordered" and equally weighted. Additionally, we clustered taxonomic units with neighbour-joining (NJ) [46] using maximum likelihood distances. Furthermore, with MrBayes [47] a Bayesian analysis (B) was carried out for tree reconstruction using a general time reversible substitution model (GTR) [4850] with substitution rates estimated by MrBayes (nst = 6). Moreover, using ProfDist, a profile neighbour-joining (PNJ) tree [51, 25] was calculated using the ITS2 specific substitution model available from the ITS2 Database. PNJ was also performed with predefined profiles (prePNJ) of all the clades given in Table 1.

For clade 'Scenedesmus' two profiles were used for groups 'true Scenedesmus' (Scenedesmus except S. longus) and 'Desmodesmus' (Desmodesmus and S. longus). We performed a sequence-structure profile neighbour-joining (strPNJ) analysis with a developmental beta version of ProfDist (available upon request). The tree reconstructing algorithm works on a 12 letter alphabet comprised of the 4 nucleotides in three structural states (unpaired, paired left, paired right). Based on a suitable substitution model [40], evolutionary distances between sequence structure pairs have been estimated by maximum likelihood. All other applied analyses were computed only on the sequence part of the sequence-structure alignment. For MP, NJ, PNJ, prePNJ and strPNJ analyses 1.000 bootstrap pseudoreplicates [52] were generated. One hundred bootstrap replicates were generated for the ML analysis. Additionally we used RAxML at the CIPRES portal to achieve 1.000 bootstraps with a substitution model estimated by RAxML [53]. All methods were additionally applied to a 50% structural consensus alignment cropped with 4SALE (data not shown). The individual steps of the analysis are displayed in a flow chart (Fig. 1).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2148-8-218/MediaObjects/12862_2008_Article_787_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Flowchart of the methods applied in this study. Sequences were obtained from the laboratory and from NCBI and afterwards folded with RNAstructure [38] or custom modelling of the ITS2 Database [3033]. An alternative way may pose to directly access sequences and structures deposed at the ITS2 Database. The sequence-structure alignment was derived by 4SALE [40]. Afterwards several phylogenetic approaches were used to calculate trees: NJ = neighbour-joining, PNJ = profile neighbour-joining, strPNJ = sequence-structure neighbour-joining, prePNJ = predefined profiles profile neighbour-joining, MP = maximum Parsimony, ML = maximum likelihood and B = Bayesian analysis.

Results

New ITS2 sequences

GenBank accession numbers for newly obtained nucleotide sequences are given in Table 1 (entries 1–4). The two ITS2 sequences of Sphaeroplea annulina (Roth, Agardh) strain SAG 377-1a and strain SAG 377-1e were identical and thus only the first one was used for further analysis. According to folding with RNAstructure, ITS2 secondary structures of the three newly obtained sequences did not exhibit any branching in their helix I (Fig. 2) as it is described for the 'core Sphaeropleales', i.e. helix I was more similar to those of the CW-group and the 'Oedogonium' clade. Helix I of Sphaeroplea annulina was explicitly longer (9 nucleotides) than those of the other newly obtained algae. Due to this insertion, for Sphaeroplea, a branching pattern was enforceable, but would have lower energy efficiency. However, the additional nucleotides are not homologous to the insertion capable of making an additional stem (Y-structure) found in the 'Scenedesmus' and the 'Hydrodictyon' clade (approximately 25 bases).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2148-8-218/MediaObjects/12862_2008_Article_787_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

ITS2 structure of Sphaeroplea annulina , degrees of conservation and structure alignment. The structure of the internal transcribed spacer 2 of Sphaeroplea annulina shows the common four helices. Helix I is unbranched. Helix I of Scenedesmus obliquus with its branch is underlain in grey. The degree of conservation over the whole alignment is indicated in blue with different degrees of colour saturation. The structural consensus function of 4SALE [40] returns nucleotides on given percentages. In the upper left corner is the sequence-structure alignment of the conserved distal part of helix III showing a differentiation of the major clades with sequence and/or structure.

ITS2 sequence and secondary structure information

ITS2 sequence lengths of all studied species ran from 202 to 262 nucleotides (nt), 235 nt on average. The GC contents of ITS2 sequences ranged from 36.84% to 59.92%, with a mean value of 52.42%. The number of base pairs (bp) varied between 64 and 89 bp and averaged 77 bp. The cropped alignment (50% structural consensus) showed that 23% of the nucleotides had at least a 50% consistency in their pairings. Compensatory base changes (CBCs) as well as hemi-CBCs (all against all) range from 0 to 16 with a mean of 6.6 CBCs (Fig. 2). Sequence pairs lacking CBCs were exclusively found within the same major clade.

Characteristics in a conserved part of alignment

In agreement with Coleman [28], the 5' side part near the tip of helix III was highly conserved including the UGGU motif [54, 55, 30], likewise the UGGGU motif in case of Chlorophyceae. We selected a part of the alignment at this position with adjacent columns (Fig. 2) to verify the suggested conservation. Having a closer look at this part of helix III, in our case, it showed typical sequence and structural characteristics for distinct groups. Studied species of the 'Oedogonium' clade possess at position 3 in the selected part of the alignment an adenine and in addition at positions 3–5 paired bases. In contrast, the CW-group solely possessed three consecutively paired bases in this block, but not the adenine. A typical pattern for clades of the DO-group was a twofold motif of 3 bases: uracile, adenine and guanine at positions 7–9, which is repeated at positions 11–13. This could be a duplication, which results in a modified secondary structure. In addition, the 'core Sphaeropleales' ('Hydrodictyon' clade and 'Scenedesmus' clade) showed an adenine base change at position 6, compared to all other clades.

Phylogenetic tree information

The PAUP* calculation applying maximum Parsimony included a total of 479 characters, whereas 181 characters were constant, 214 variable characters were parsimony-informative compared to 84 parsimony-uninformative ones.

The resulting trees (Fig. 3 and 4, Table 2) of all performed analyses (NJ [PAUP* and ProfDist], PNJ, prePNJ, strPNJ, ML [PAUP* and RAxML], MP, B) yielded six major clades: the 'Dunaliella', the 'Hydrodictyon', the 'Oedogonium', the 'Reinhardtii', the 'Scenedesmus', and the 'Sphaeroplea' clade. All of them were separated and – except for the 'Scenedesmus' clade – highly supported by bootstrap values of 83–100%, respectively by Bayesian posterior probabilities of 0.86–1.0.
Table 2

Bootstrap support values for basal branches of all methods applied.

Software

ProfDist

PAUP*

MrBayes

RAxML

Model

ITS2

Modeltest

-

Estimated

Analysis

NJ

PNJ

prePNJ

strPNJ

NJ

ML

MP

B

ML

Nodes

a

99

95

1001

100

91

-

82

0.86

-

 

b

96

96

1001

96

99

93

86

1.00

98

 

c

88

88

95

88

90

-

63

0.72

-

 

d

100

99

1001

100

100

92

100

1.00

96

 

e

62

55

53

60

-

-

62

0.97

64

 

f

100

100

1001

100

100

99

100

1.00

100

 

g

87

91

88

96

86

67

80

0.98

93

 

h

99

99

1001

99

100

100

100

1.00

100

 

i

90

90

92

84

93

88

85

0.99

89

 

j

97

98

1001

98

93

91

91

0.99

98

 

k

97

96

1001

95

96

88

83

1.00

99

Figure

3

4

The table supplements Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. Node "g" supports a monophyletic DO group and is printed in bold letters. Software used: ProfDist and PAUP*. Models of substitution: ITS2 = GTR with ITS2 substitution matrix, Modeltest: TVM+I+G with estimated parameters. Phylogenetic analysis: NJ = neighbour-joining, PNJ = profile neighbour-joining, prePNJ = profile neighbour-joining with predefined profiles, strPNJ = sequence-structure profile neighbour-joining, ML = maximum likelihood, B = Bayesian analysis (posterior probabilities), MP = maximum Parsimony. 1Predefined profiles for profile neighbour-joining.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2148-8-218/MediaObjects/12862_2008_Article_787_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Neighbour-joining phylogeny of the Chlorophyceae based on comparison of ITS2 rRNA sequences and structures. The tree is unrooted, but the 'Oedogonium' clade is most likely appropriate as outgroup [56]. Sequences of the 'Sphaeroplea' clade were sequenced for this study and shown in bold letters. The phylogenetic tree is calculated by neighbour-joining with PAUP* [46, 43] for an alignment with 52 taxa and 479 characters. The substitution model was set to TVM+I+G with parameters estimated by Modeltest [42]. Bootstrap values of basal branches are given for profile neighbour-joining with predefined profiles (ProfDist with ITS2 substitution model) [51, 31]. Branch thickness is dependant of Bootstrap values calculated with four distance methods: neighbour-joining (PAUP*), neighbour-joining, complete profile neighbour-joining and sequence-structure profile neighbour-joining (all three ProfDist with ITS2 substitution model).

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2148-8-218/MediaObjects/12862_2008_Article_787_Fig4_HTML.jpg
Figure 4

Phylogeny of chlorophyte ITS2 sequences and structures based on distances of a Bayesian analysis. The alignment contained 52 taxa and 479 characters. The suggested outgroup is the 'Oedogonium' clade [56]. Sequenced species are shown in bold ('Sphaeroplea' clade). Substitution models and tree distances were calculated with MrBayes [47]. Posterior probabilities are shown for basal branches. Branch thickness is dependant of Bootstrap values calculated with maximum likelihood (PAUP* with TVM+I+G, RAxML) [42, 53, 43] and maximum Parsimony (PAUP*) (see legend). Resulting parameter of performing MP are L = 1231, CI = 0.4427, HI = 0.5573, RI = 0.7264, RC = 0.3216.

The 'Hydrodictyon' clade, the 'Scenedesmus' clade and the 'Sphaeroplea' clade form one cluster that was strongly supported by high bootstrap values of 67–96% (node "g"). The three clades composed the DO-group. The opposite cluster included the 'Dunaliella' and the 'Reinhardtii' clade, forming the CW-group. The 'Oedogonium' clade was chosen as the outgroup [56]. Both clusters (CW-group and 'Oedogonium' clade) were strongly supported by bootstrap values of 84–100% (nodes "i" and "h").

Except for the Bayesian analysis (least support for node "c"), all applied methods yielded node "e" as the weakest point within the basal (labelled) branches (Table 2), which presents the relationship between the 'Hydrodictyon' and the 'Scenedesmus' clade on the one hand and the 'Dunaliella', the 'Oedogonium', the 'Reinhardtii' and the 'Sphaeroplea' clade on the other hand. The phylogenetic tree resulting from neighbour-joining analysis by PAUP* (Fig. 3) did not support node "e" at all, but strongly supported the remaining labelled branches. The maximum likelihood analysis by PAUP* (Fig. 4) did not encourage node "e" either. Both maximum likelihood methods did not even support nodes "a" ('true Scenedesmus' compared to remaining clades) and "c" ('Scenedesmus' opposite to remaining clades). All other basal branches were supported by this method.

Varying neighbour-joining analyses by ProfDist (NJ, PNJ, prePNJ, strPNJ) supported all basal branches – except for the weakest node "e" (average support) – with very high bootstrap support values of 84–100%. The maximum Parsimony method gave average support (63 and 62%) for node "c" and "e" and high bootstrap values (80–100%) for the remaining basal clades. The Bayesian analysis offered posterior probabilities of 0.72 for node "c" and 0.86–1.0 for the remaining basal nodes. For further sister group relations see Fig. 3 and 4.

In comparison, the topology of the phylogenetic tree based on the 50% cropped alignment did not change, but the bootstrap support values were lower in all cases (data not shown).

Discussion

The internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) is required in ribosome biogenesis [5759] and its gradual removal from mature rRNA is driven by its specific secondary structure [60, 59].

Using three newly obtained ITS2 sequences from Ankyra judayi, Atractomorpha porcata and Sphaeroplea annulina (Sphaeropleaceae) in this study we aimed to pursue two consecutive questions concerning the phylogenetic relationships within Chlorophyceae. (1) What is the phylogenetic position of the newly sequenced algae relative to the 'core Sphaeropleales' and could the biflagellate DO-group be regarded as monophyletic? (2) How does the secondary structure of the new ITS2 sequences look like and is an autapomorphic feature of the secondary structure associated with the monophyletic DO-group?

Considering the question (1) Buchheim et al. [6] and Wolf et al. [23] approached the problem with 18S + 26S rDNA and 18S rDNA data, but the relationship between the 'core Sphaeropleales' and the Sphaeropleaceae remained unclear. However, in their studies, Ankyra, Atractomorpha and Sphaeroplea clustered in a monophyletic clade named Sphaeropleaceae. We confirm this 'Sphaeroplea' clade with all three genera being strongly separated from other clades. As a result of a Bayesian analysis on a combined 18S and 26S rDNA dataset Shoup and Lewis [61] also found the Sphaeropleaceae as the most basal clade within the Sphaeropleales, but again the analysis lacked a strong backing. Beside these difficulties the 'core Sphaeropleales' were already shown to be monophyletic with high certainty [6, 25, 62, 61, 23].

The DO-group (Sphaeropleales including the 'Sphaeroplea' clade) as emended by Deason et al. [10], for which the directly opposed basal body orientation and basal body connection features are verified [6365], is now strongly supported by molecular phylogenetic analyses. There was already evidence of an extended DO-group [6, 66, 67], however, for some groups ultrastructural results are still lacking, and even though the collective basal body orientation and connection imply a monophyletic DO-group, until now no molecular phylogenetic analysis could show this with solid support [6, 62, 24, 23]. We demonstrate for the first time with robust support values for the equivocal nodes that the 'core Sphaeropleales', the 'Sphaeroplea' clade, and the Sphaeropleales are monophyletic.

Regarding question (2), for all structures of the 'Hydrodictyon' and the 'Scenedesmus' clade, helix I shows the typical branching (Y-structure). Initially, An et al. [68] proposed a secondary structure model with an unbranched helix I for ITS2 sequences of 'Scenedesmus' clade members. Thereafter, van Hannen et al. [34] updated the model by folding the nucleotide sequences based upon minimum free energy and found a branched helix I as the most energetically stable option. The branching is result of an insertion of approximately 25 nucleotides capable of folding as an individual stem within the 5' end of the first helix. However, ITS2 sequence and secondary structure information of further 'core Sphaeropleales' members, e.g. the 'Ankistrodesmus' clade and the 'Bracteacoccus' clade, lacks hitherto. In contrast, the Y-structure is absent within the 'Sphaeroplea' clade and any other investigated group so far. Thus this feature is – contrary to our expectation – not an autapomorphic character for the biflagellate DO-group as a whole but for the 'core Sphaeropleales'.

Regarding future work, the resolution among the main clades of Chlorophyceae was statistically poorly supported in previous studies [68, 15, 6, 23]. Pröschold and Leliaert [24] reviewed the systematics of green algae by applying a polyphasic approach, but did not yield a clear resolution regarding a sister taxon to the Sphaeropleales. Since they are not yet available, ITS2 sequences of chaetopeltidalean and chaetophoralean taxa could not be included in the present study and therefore the phylogenetic relationships between the main Chlorophyceae clades remain open. We recommend involving sequence and secondary structure information of chaetopeltidalean and chaetophoralean ITS2 sequences in future studies to find out if the monophyletic biflagellate DO-group could be further extended to a general monophyletic DO-group containing quadri- and biflagellate taxa. A genome-wide approach indicates that Sphaeropleales and Chlamydomonadales are sister taxa, however only a few organisms are included in this study [56]. An additional uprising question is when the Y has evolved within the 'core Sphaeropleales'. This could be resolved by inclusion of other members (e.g. Bracteacoccus) in further studies.

The two major reasons contributing to the robust results presented here are the change of the phylogenetic marker and the inclusion of secondary structure information. In contrast to previous phylogenetic work concerning Chlorophyceae, this study is based on the ITS2, which offers a resolution power for relationships from the level of subspecies up to the order level, because of their variable sequence but conserved secondary structure [26, 3033]. Hitherto commonly used markers in contrast are a lot more restricted. Using 4SALE [40] with implemented structure consideration, we could achieve for the first time a global simultaneously generated sequence-structure alignment (c.f. Fig. 1) yielding specific sequence and structural features distinguishing different algae lineages (c.f. Fig. 2).

Conclusion

In summary, the powerful combination of the ITS2 rRNA gene marker plus a multiple global alignment based synchronously on sequence and secondary structure yielded high bootstrap support values for almost all nodes of the computed phylogenetic trees. Thus, the relationship of Sphaeropleaceae is here resolved, being a part of the Sphaeropleales representing the monophyletic biflagellate DO-group. Furthermore, we could elucidate a branched helix I of ITS2 as an autapomorphic feature within the DO-group. This feature could be found only in the 'Hydrodictyon' and the 'Scenedesmus' clade. Our results corroborate the presented methodological pipeline, the fundamental relevance of secondary structure consideration, as well as the elevated power and suitability of ITS2 in phylogenetics. For a methodological improvement it is suitable to ameliorate the alignment algorithm in further considering horizontal dependencies of paired nucleotides, and moreover in future ITS2 studies it is suggested to include sequence and secondary structure information of hitherto not regarded taxa to resolve the chlorophycean phylogeny.

Notes

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Financial support for AK and TS was provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) grant (Mu-2831/1-1). AK was additionally supported by BIGSS (Elite graduate school). FF was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) grant FUNCRYPTA. The newly obtained sequences originate from SAG cultures (Göttingen, Germany). We thank the Institute of Hygiene and Microbiology (Würzburg, Germany) for sequencing. We thank T. Ulmar Grafe (University of Brunei Darussalam) for proof-reading English.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Bioinformatics, University of Würzburg

References

  1. Agardh CA: Systema algarum XXV. 1824, Lund, Sweden: Soc PhysiogrView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Bold HC, Wynne MJ: Introduction to the algae: structure and reproduction. 1985, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  3. Booton GC, Floyd GL, Fuerst PA: Polyphyly of tetrasporalean green algae inferred from nuclear small-subunit ribosomal DNA. J Phycol. 1998, 34: 306-311. 10.1046/j.1529-8817.1998.340306.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Booton GC, Floyd GL, Fuerst PA: Origins and affinities of the filamentous green algal orders Chaetophorales and Oedogoniales based on 18S rRNA gene sequences. J Phycol. 1998, 34: 312-318. 10.1046/j.1529-8817.1998.340312.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Buchheim MA, Hoffman LR: Ultrastructure of male gametes of Sphaeroplea robusta (Chlorophyceae). J Phycol. 1986, 22: 176-185. 10.1111/j.1529-8817.1986.tb04161.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchheim MA, Michalopulos EA, Buchheim JA: Phylogeny of the Chlorophyceae with special reference to the Sphaeropleales: a study of 18S and 26S rDNA data. J Phycol. 2001, 37: 819-835. 10.1046/j.1529-8817.2001.00162.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Cáceres EJ, Robinson DG: Ultrastructural studies on Sphaeroplea annulina (Chlorophyceae). Vegetative structure and mitosis. J Phycol. 1980, 16: 313-320. 10.1111/j.1529-8817.1980.tb03039.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Cáceres EJ, Robinson DG: Ultrastructural studies on Sphaeroplea annulina (Chlorophyceae). II. Spermatogenesis and male gamete structure. J Phycol. 1981, 17: 173-180. 10.1111/j.1529-8817.1981.tb00836.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman R, Buchheim MA, Delwiche CF, Friedl T, Huss VA, Karol KG, Lewis LA, Manhart J, McCourt RM, Olsen JL, Waters DA: Molecular systematics of the green algae. Molecular systematics of plants II: DNA sequencing. Edited by: Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Doyle J. 1998, Boston, MA: Kluwer Acad. Publ, 508-540.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Deason TR, Silva P, Watanabe S, Floyd GL: Taxonomic status of the species of the green algal genus Neochloris . Plant Sys Evol. 1991, 177: 213-219. 10.1007/BF00937958.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Engler A, Prantl K: Die natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien I. 1897, Leipzig, Germany: Verlag von Wilhelm EngelmannGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoffman LR: Atractomorpha echinata gen. et ap.-nov., a new anisogamous member of the Sphaeropleaceae (Chlorophyceae). J Phycol. 1983, 19: 76-86. 10.1111/j.0022-3646.1983.00076.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoffman LR: Atractomorpha porcata ap. nov., a new member of the Sphaeropleaceae (Chlorophyceae) from California. J Phycol. 1984, 20: 225-236. 10.1111/j.0022-3646.1984.00225.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Kützing FT: Species Algarum. 1849, Leipzig, Germany: Brockhaus VerlagGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis LA, McCourt RM: Green algae and the origin of land plants. Am J Bot. 2004, 91: 1535-1556. 10.3732/ajb.91.10.1535.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Mattox KR, Stewart KD: Classification of the green algae: a concept based on comparative cytology. Systematics of the green algae. Edited by: Irvine DEG, John DM. 1984, London, UK: Academic Press, 29-42.Google Scholar
  17. Pascher A: Systematische Übersicht über die mit Flagellaten in Zusammenhang stehenden Algenreihen und Versuch einer Einreihung dieser Algenstämme in die Stämme des Pflanzenreiches. Beihefte Bot Centralbl. 1931, 48: 317-332.Google Scholar
  18. Pascher A: Über geißlbewegliche Eier, mehrköpfige Schwärmer und vollständigen Schwärmverlust bei Sphaeroplea. Beihefte Bot Centralbl. 1939, 59: 188-213.Google Scholar
  19. Rieth A: Über die vegetative Vermehrung bei Sphaeroplea wilmani Fritsch et Rich. Flora. 1952, 139: 28-38.Google Scholar
  20. Rieth A: Zur Kenntnis der Gattung Sphaeroplea, Sphaeroplea caubrica Fritsch. Flora. 1953, 140: 130-139.Google Scholar
  21. Stewart KD, Mattox KR: Comparative cytology, evolution and classification of the green algae with some consideration of other organisms with chlorophylls a and b. Botanical Rev. 1975, 41: 104-135. 10.1007/BF02860837.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. West LW, Fritsch FE: A treatise on the british freshwater algae, Reviewed edition. 1927, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Wolf M, Buchheim MA, Hegewald E, Krienitz L, Hepperle D: Phylogenetic position of the Sphaeropleaceae (Chlorophyta). Plant Sys Evol. 2002, 230: 161-171. 10.1007/s006060200002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Pröschold T, Leliaert F: Systematics of the green algae: conflict of classic and modern approaches. Unravelling the algae: the past, present, and future of algal systematics. Edited by: Brodie J, Lewis J. 2007, London, UK: CRC Press, 123-135.Google Scholar
  25. Müller T, Rahmann S, Dandekar T, Wolf M: Accurate and robust phylogeny estimation based on profile distances: a study of the Chlorophyceae (Chlorophyta). BMC Evol Biol. 2004, 4: 20-10.1186/1471-2148-4-20.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Coleman AW: ITS2 is a double-edged tool for eukaryote evolutionary comparisons. TIG. 2003, 19: 370-375.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Coleman AW, Vacquier VD: Exploring the phylogenetic utility of ITS sequences for animals: a test case for Abalone (Haliotis). J Mol Evol. 2002, 54: 246-257. 10.1007/s00239-001-0006-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Coleman AW: Pan-eukaryote ITS2 homologies revealed by RNA secondary structure. Nucl Acids Res. 2007, 35: 3322-3329. 10.1093/nar/gkm233.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Young I, Coleman AW: The advantages of the ITS2 region of the nuclear rDNA cistron for analysis of phylogenetic relationships of insects: a Drosophila example. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2004, 30: 236-242. 10.1016/S1055-7903(03)00178-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Schultz J, Maisel S, Gerlach D, Müller T, Wolf M: A common core of secondary structure of the internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) throughout the Eukaryota. RNA. 2005, 11: 361-364. 10.1261/rna.7204505.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Schultz J, Müller T, Achtziger M, Seibel P, Dandekar T, Wolf M: The internal transcribed spacer 2 database – a web server for (not only) low level phylogenetic analyses. Nucl Acids Res. 2006, 34 (Suppl 2): W704-707. 10.1093/nar/gkl129.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Selig C, Wolf M, Müller T, Dandekar T, Schultz J: The ITS2 Database II: homology modelling RNA structure for molecular systematics. Nucl Acids Res. 2008, 36: D377-D380. 10.1093/nar/gkm827.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wolf M, Achtziger M, Schultz J, Dandekar T, Müller T: Homology modeling revealed more than 20,000 rRNA internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) secondary structures. RNA. 2005, 11: 1616-1623. 10.1261/rna.2144205.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. van Hannen EJ, Fink P, Lürling M: A revised secondary structure model for the internal transcribed spacer 2 of the green algae Scenedesmus and Desmodesmus and its implication for the phylogeny of these algae. Eur J Phycol. 2002, 37: 203-208. 10.1017/S096702620200361X.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Buchheim MA, Buchheim JA, Carlson T, Braband A, Hepperle D, Krienitz L, Wolf M, Hegewald E: Phylogeny of the Hydrodictyaceae (Chlorophyceae): inferences from rDNA data. J Phycol. 2005, 41: 1039-1054. 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2005.00129.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Grajales A, Aguilar C, Sanchez J: Phylogenetic reconstruction using secondary structures of internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2, rDNA): finding the molecular and morphological gap in Caribbean gorgonian corals. BMC Evol Biol. 2007, 7: 90-10.1186/1471-2148-7-90.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor J: Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications. Edited by: Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ. 1990, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 315-322.Google Scholar
  38. Mathews DH, Disney MD, Childs JL, Schroeder SJ, Zuker M, Turner DH: Incorporating chemical modification constraints into a dynamic programming algorithm for prediction of RNA secondary structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004, 101: 7287-7292. 10.1073/pnas.0401799101.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Byun Y, Han K: PseudoViewer: web application and web service for visualizing RNA pseudoknots and secondary structures. Nucl Acids Res. 2006, 34: 416-422. 10.1093/nar/gkl210.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Seibel P, Müller T, Dandekar T, Schultz J, Wolf M: 4 SALE – A tool for synchronous RNA sequence and secondary structure alignment and editing. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006, 7: 498-10.1186/1471-2105-7-498.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ: ClustalW: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucl Acids Res. 1994, 22: 4673-4680. 10.1093/nar/22.22.4673.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Posada D, Crandall KA: Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics. 1998, 14 (9): 817-818. 10.1093/bioinformatics/14.9.817.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Swofford DL: PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), version 4.0b10. 2002, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  44. Felsenstein J: Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. J Mol Evol. 1981, 17: 368-376. 10.1007/BF01734359.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Camin JH, Sokal RR: A method for deducing branching sequences in phylogeny. Evolution. 1965, 311-326. 10.2307/2406441.Google Scholar
  46. Saitou N, Nei M: The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol. 1987, 4 (4): 406-425.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F: MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics. 2001, 17: 754-755. 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Lanave C, Preparata G, Sacone C, Serio G: A new method for calculating evolutionary substitution rates. J Mol Evol. 1984, 20: 86-93. 10.1007/BF02101990.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Rodriguez F, Oliver JL, Marin A, Medina J: The general stochastic model of nucleotide substitution. J Theor Biol. 1990, 142: 485-501. 10.1016/S0022-5193(05)80104-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Tavaré S: Some probabilistic and statistical problems in the analysis of DNA sequences. Some mathematical questions in biology: DNA sequence analysis. Edited by: Lipman D, Miura RM. 1986, Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 57-86.Google Scholar
  51. Friedrich J, Dandekar T, Wolf M, Müller T: ProfDist: a tool for the construction of large phylogenetic trees based on profile distances. Bioinformatics. 2005, 21 (9): 2108-2109. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti289.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Felsenstein J: Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution. 1985, 783-791. 10.2307/2408678.Google Scholar
  53. Stamatakis A, Hoover P, Rougemont J: A rapid bootstrap algorithm for the RAxML web-servers. Systematic Biology. 2008Google Scholar
  54. Liu J, Schardl CL: A conserved sequence in internal transcribed spacer 1 of plant nuclear rRNA genes. Plant Molecular Biology. 1994, 26: 775-778. 10.1007/BF00013763.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Mai JC, Coleman AW: The internal transcribed spacer 2 exhibits a common secondary structure in green algae and flowering plants. J Mol Evol. 1997, 44: 258-271. 10.1007/PL00006143.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Turmel M, Brouard JS, Gagnon C, Otis C, Lemieux C: Deep division in the Chlorophyceae (Chlorophyta) revealed by chloroplast phylogenomic analyses. J Phycol. 2008, 44: 739-756. 10.1111/j.1529-8817.2008.00510.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Côté CA, Peculis BA: Role of the ITS2-proximal stem and evidence for indirect recognition of processing sites in pre-rRNA processing in yeast. Nucleic Acids Research. 2001, 29: 2106-2116. 10.1093/nar/29.10.2106.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Peculis BA, Greer CL: The structure of the ITS2-proximal stem is required for pre-rRNA processing in yeast RNA. RNA. 1998, 4: 1610-1622. 10.1017/S1355838298981420.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Nues RW van, Rientjes JM, Morré SA, Mollee E, Planta RJ, Venema J, Raué Hendrik A: Evolutionarily conserved structural elements are critical for processing of internal transcribed spacer 2 from Saccharomyces cerevisiae precursor ribosomal RNA. J Mol Biol. 1995, 250: 24-36. 10.1006/jmbi.1995.0355.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Sande van der CA, Kwa MR, van Nues RW, van Heerikhuizen H, Raué Hendrik A, Planta RJ: Functional analysis of internal transcribed spacer 2 of Saccharomyces cerevisiae ribosomal DNA. J Mol Biol. 1992, 223: 899-910. 10.1016/0022-2836(92)90251-E.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Shoup S, Lewis LA: Polyphyletic origin of parallel basal bodies in swimming cells of chlorophycean green algae (Chlorophyta). J Phycol. 2003, 39: 789-796. 10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.03009.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Hegewald E, Hepperle D, Wolf M, Krienitz L: Phylogenetic placement of Chlorotetraedron incus, C. polymorphum and Polyedriopsis spinulosa (Neochloridaceae, Chlorophyta). Phycologia. 2001, 40: 399-402.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Melkonian M: Structural and evolutionary aspects of the flagellar apparatus in green algae and land plants. Taxon. 1982, 31: 255-265. 10.2307/1219989.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Melkonian M, Surek B: Phylogeny of the Chlorophyta: congruence between ultrastructural and molecular evidence. Bull Soc Zool Fr. 1995, 120: 191-208.Google Scholar
  65. Wilcox LW, Floyd GL: Ultrastructure of the gamete of Pediastrum duplex (Chlorophyceae). J Phycol. 1988, 24: 140-146.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Lewis LA: Diversity and phylogenetic placement of Bracteacoccus tereg (Chlorophyceae, Chlorophyta) based on 18S ribosomal RNA gene sequence data. J Phycol. 1997, 33: 279-10.1111/j.0022-3646.1997.00279.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Krienitz L, Hegewald E, Hepperle D, Wolf M: The systematics of coccoid green algae: 18S rRNA gene sequence data versus morphology. Biologia. 2003, 58: 437-446.Google Scholar
  68. An SS, Friedl T, Hegewald E: Phylogenetic relationships of Scenedesmus and Scenedesmus-like coccoid green algae as inferred from ITS-2 rDNA sequence comparisons. Plant biol. 1999, 1: 418-428. 10.1111/j.1438-8677.1999.tb00724.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. AlgaeBase. [http://www.algaebase.org]
  70. 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: 265-300. 10.1078/1434-4610-00068.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Keller et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008

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.

Advertisement