Inclusion of chloroplast genes that have undergone expansion misleads phylogenetic reconstruction in the Chlorophyta.

Premise Of The Study: Chlorophytes comprise a substantial proportion of green plant diversity. However, sister-group relationships and circumscription of the classes Chlorophyceae, Trebouxiophyceae, and Ulvophyceae have been problematic to resolve. Some analyses support a sister relationship between the trebouxiophycean Leptosira and chlorophyceans, potentially altering the circumscription of two classes, also supported by a shared fragmentation in the chloroplast gene rpoB. We sought to determine whether the latter is a synapomorphy or whether the supporting analyses are vulnerable to systematic bias.

Methods: We sequenced a portion of rpoB spanning the fragmented region in strains for which it had not previously been sampled: four Chlorophyceae, six counterclockwise (CCW) group (ulvophyceans and trebouxiophyceans) and one streptophyte. We then explored the effect of subsampling proteins and taxa on phylogenetic reconstruction from a data set of 41 chloroplast proteins.

Key Results: None of the CCW or streptophyte strains possessed the split in rpoB, including inferred near relatives of Leptosira, but it was found in all chlorophycean strains. We reconstructed alternative phylogenies (Leptosira + Chlorophyceae and Leptosira + Chlorellales) using two different protein groups (Rpo and Rps), both subject to coding-region expansion. A conserved region of RpoB remained suitable for analysis of more recent divergences.

Conclusions: The Rps sequences can explain earlier findings linking Leptosira with the Chlorophyceae and should be excluded from phylogenetic analyses attempting to resolve deep nodes because their expansion violates the assumptions of substitution models. We reaffirm that Leptosira is a trebouxiophycean and that fragmentation of rpoB has occurred at least twice in chlorophyte evolution.