Taxonomic conflicts in Prunus were reported by Waugh (1901) and Hedrick (1911). Waugh (1901) stated that “plums grow pretty much as they please, and the botanist has to take them as he finds them.” He recognized that new classifications sometimes changed the previously published species groupings and classifications. Prunus classifications and discrepancies were well summarized by Bortiri et al. (2001), with Rehder’s (1940) classification being recognized as the most widely used and accepted. Rehder’s (1940) classification divided Prunus into five subgenera: Prunophora (Prunus), Amygdalus, Cerasus, Padus, and Laurocerasus. The subgenus Prunus was further divided into sections: Euprunus, Prunocerasus (North American plums), and Armeniaca. Recent phylogenetic studies supported the concept of Prunus as a monophyletic group (single genus). However, the genus Prunus contained several poorly supported subclades/terminals (subgenera/species) (Bortiri et al., 2001, 2002, 2006; Kaneko et al., 1986; Katayama and Uematsu, 2005; Lee and Wen, 2001; Shaw and Small, 2004, 2005; Wen et al., 2008).
The genus Prunus is globally distributed, with ≈200 species. North America is an important center of diversity for plum species adapted to divergent climates and soils. Plums are considered to harbor the greatest diversity of fruit flavor, aroma, texture, color, form, and size among the stone fruits (Hedrick, 1911; Waugh, 1901). Mason’s (1913) and Rehder’s (1940) taxonomic classifications have been used for most of the Prunus phylogenetic analyses. Hereafter, the North American plums will be referred to as section Prunocerasus (Bortiri et al., 2001; Shaw and Small, 2004).
The phylogeny of the genus Prunus was studied by Mowrey and Werner (1990) using isozymes. Prunus section Prunocerasus was found to be polyphyletic, with a clade composed of Prunus americana, Prunus munsoniana, Prunus hortulana, Prunus subcordata, and Prunus angustifolia, and with Prunus maritima and Prunus umbellata in another. Badenes and Parfitt (1995) reported similar results to Mowrey and Werner (1990) using cpDNA sequences. They recovered all conventional subgenus classifications based on Rehder’s (1940) taxonomic treatment: P. persica-Prunus dulcis, Prunus domestica-Prunus salicina, and Prunus cerasus-Prunus fruticosa monophyletic clades.
Two major groups, the Amygdalus-Prunus group and the Cerasus-Laurocerasus-Padus group, were recovered by Lee and Wen’s (2001) phylogenetic analysis using ITS sequences of ribosomal DNA. These results were not congruent with Rehder’s (1940) taxonomic treatment. Bortiri et al. (2001) supported the genus Prunus monophyly using ITS and chloroplast trnL-trnF spacer DNA sequences. Subgenera Padus-Laurocerasus-Cerasus and subgenera Prunus-Amygdalus-Emplectocladus-Cerasus (section Microcerasus)-section Penarmeniaca formed two major clades, respectively. The plums of northeastern North America were found to be closely related with Prunus mexicana as sister to the rest of this clade.
Bortiri et al. (2002) used the nuclear gene sorbitol 6-phosphate dehydrogenase (s6pdh) combined with ITS and trnL-trnF sequences to improve the lack of definition for deep nodes in the subgenera Prunus-Amygdalus-Emplectocladus clade, as previously reported (Bortiri et al., 2001). Phylogenetic analysis of the combined data supported two major clades: subgenera Cerasus-Laurocerasus-Padus and subgenera Amygdalus-Emplectocladus-Prunus. Section Microcerasus (subgenus Cerasus) was found nested within subgenus Prunus.
Prunus subgenus Prunus section Prunocerasus was reported to be monophyletic by Shaw and Small (2004) based on the data from seven cpDNA regions: rpS16, rpL16, trnL, trnG, trnL-trnF, trnS-trnG, and trnH-psbA. Three clades were strongly supported in section Prunocerasus based on Waugh’s (1901) classification: “American Clade,” “Chickasaw Clade,” and “Beach Clade.” The American Clade included P. americana var. americana, P. americana var. lanata, P. mexicana, Prunus rivularis, P. hortulana, P. umbellata var. injucunda; the Chickasaw Clade included P. angustifolia, P. munsoniana, Prunus gracilis, Prunus nigra, P. umbellata var. umbellata, Prunus alleghaniensis var. alleghanienses, and P. alleghaniensis var. davisii; and the Beach Clade included Prunus geniculata, P. maritima var. maritima, and P. maritima var. gravesii.
The majority of phylogenetic research in Prunus has been done using cpDNA sequences (Badenes and Parfitt, 1995; Bortiri et al., 2001, 2002, 2006; Kaneko et al., 1986; Katayama and Uematsu, 2005; Shaw and Small, 2004, 2005; Wen et al., 2008). The advantages and disadvantages of using cpDNA for plant phylogenetic analyses have been well summarized by Soltis and Soltis (1998). One of the advantages includes that the chloroplast genome of plants is small. The size of the peach (cv. Hakuhou) chloroplast genome has been estimated to be about 152 kb (Katayama and Uematsu, 2005). The chloroplast genome rate of evolution is considered to be slow in comparison with nuclear genes (Soltis and Soltis, 1998). The latter could be considered an advantage when studying distantly related species and disadvantage when studying closely related species and species at the population level. The maternal inheritance of chloroplasts can be used to track interspecific introgression events, but it could lead to erroneous species relationships (Soltis and Soltis, 1998).
The slow rate of evolution of several cpDNA sequences and their value to infer phylogenetic relationships in closely related species for some angiosperms, including Prunus, was revised by Small et al. (1998) and Shaw et al. (2005, 2007). The main objective of the study of Shaw et al. (2007) was to identify chloroplast regions that would provide the greatest number of characters for low-level molecular phylogenetic studies. Shaw et al. (2007) recommended selecting the top few choices with the greatest variability to be screened in a particular lineage to determine which of those are the most informative for a specific group.
Bortiri et al. (2006) demonstrated the power of including morphological characters for Prunus phylogenetic analyses. The combined data provided by ITS sequences, cpDNA regions, and morphological characters for Prunus yielded support of some nodes that were previously identified in Prunus (Bortiri et al., 2001). Several synapomorphies supported large groups, providing additional resolution for some clades. Similarly, Rohrer et al. (2004) reported that microsatellite markers could provide the genetic variability necessary to resolve the relationships within Prunus at the species level.
The main objective of this research was to measure and to identify additional genomic regions that could provide the greatest number of characters, greatest variability, and improved phylogenetic signal at the species level for Prunus section Prunocerasus relationships.
Badenes, M.L. & Parfitt, D.E. 1995 Phylogenetic relationships of cultivated Prunus species from an analysis of chloroplast DNA variation Theor. Appl. Genet. 90 1035 1041
Bortiri, E., Oh, S.-H., Gao, F.-Y. & Potter, D. 2002 The phylogenetic utility of nucleotide sequences of sorbitol 6-phosphate dehydrogenase in Prunus (Rosaceae) Amer. J. Bot. 89 1697 1708
Bortiri, E., Oh, S.-H., Jiang, J., Baggett, S., Granger, A., Weeks, C., Buckingham, M., Potter, D. & Parfitt, D.E. 2001 Phylogeny and systematic of Prunus (Rosaceae) as determined by sequence analysis of ITS and the chloroplast trnL-trnF spacer DNA Syst. Bot. 26 797 807
Bortiri, E., Vanden Heuvel, B. & Potter, D. 2006 Phylogenetic analysis of morphology in Prunus reveals extensive homoplasy Plant Syst. Evol. 259 53 71
Carrillo-Mendoza, O. 2012 Genetics of tree architecture in peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch). PhD Diss., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL
Chavez, D.J. 2013 The North American plums (Prunus spp.) and their use as germplasm resources: From populations to phylogenetic studies—A breeder’s perspective. PhD Diss., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL
Chavez, D.J., Beckman, T.G., Werner, D.J. & Chaparro, J.X. 2014 Genetic diversity in peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] at the University of Florida: Past, present and future Tree Genet. Genomes 10 1399 1417
Chavez, D.J. & Chaparro, J.X. 2011 Identification of markers linked to seedlessness in Citrus kinokuni hort. ex Tanaka and its progeny using bulked segregant analysis HortScience 46 693 697
Chiang, T.-Y., Schaal, B.A. & Peng, C.-I. 1998 Universal primers for amplification and sequencing a noncoding spacer between atpB and rbcL genes of chloroplast DNA Botanical Bul. Acad. Sinica. 39 245 250
Dirlewanger, E., Graziano, E., Joobeur, T., Garriga-Caldere, F., Cosson, P., Howad, W. & Arús, P. 2004 Comparative mapping and marker-assisted selection in Rosaceae fruit crops Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101 9891 9896
Goodstein, D.M., Shu, S., Howson, R., Neupane, R., Hayes, R.D., Fazo, J., Mitros, T., Dirks, W., Hellsten, U., Putnam, N. & Rokhsar, D.S. 2012 Phytozome: A comparative platform for green plant genomics Nucl. Acids Res. 40 D1178 D1186
Hedrick, U.P. 1911 The plums of New York. Rpt. New York State Agr. Expt. Sta. Albany, J.B. Lyon, Geneva, NY
Joly, S. & Bruneau, A. 2006 Incorporating allelic variation for reconstructing the evolutionary history of organisms from multiple genes: An example from Rosa in North America Syst. Biol. 55 623 636
Jung, S., Staton, M., Lee, T., Blenda, A., Svancara, R., Abbott, A. & Main, D. 2008 GDR (genome database for Rosaceae): Integrated web-database for Rosaceae genomics and genetic data Nucl. Acids Res. 36 1034 1040
Kaneko, T., Terachi, T. & Tsunewaki, K. 1986 Studies on the origin of crops species by restriction endonuclease analysis of organellar DNA. II. Restriction analysis of ctDNA of 11 Prunus species Jpn. J. Genet. 61 157 168
Katayama, H. & Uematsu, C. 2005 Structural analysis of chloroplast DNA in Prunus (Rosaceae): Evolution, genetic diversity and unequal mutations Theor. Appl. Genet. 111 1430 1439
Lee, S. & Wen, J. 2001 A phylogenetic analysis of Prunus and the Amygdaloideae (Rosaceae) using ITS sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA Amer. J. Bot. 88 150 160
Maddison, W.P. & Maddison, D.R. 2011 Mesquite: A modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 2.75. 20 Dec. 2012. <http://mesquiteproject.org>.
Miller, M.A., Pfeiffer, W. & Schwartz, T. 2010 Creating the CIPRES science gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. Proc. Gateway Computing Environ. Workshop. 14 Nov. 2010. New Orleans, LA. p. 1–7
Morris, A.B., Ickert-Bond, S.M., Brunson, D.B., Soltis, D.E. & Soltis, P.S. 2008 Phylogeographic structure and temporal complexity in American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) Mol. Ecol. 17 3889 3900
Mowrey, B.D. & Werner, D.J. 1990 Phylogenetic relationships among species of Prunus as inferred by isozyme markers Theor. Appl. Genet. 80 129 133
Nei, M. & Takezaki, N. 1983 Estimation of genetic distances and phylogenetic trees from DNA analysis. Proc. 5 World Congr. Genet. Appl. Livestock Prod. 21:405–412
Oatley, G., Voelker, G., Crowe, T.M. & Bowie, R.C.K. 2012 A multi-locus phylogeny reveals a complex pattern of diversification related to climate and habitat heterogeneity in southern African white-eyes Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 64 633 644
Peakall, R. & Smouse, P.E. 2006 GENALEX 6: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research Mol. Ecol. Notes 6 288 295
Peakall, R. & Smouse, P.E. 2012 GenAlEx 6.5: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research—An update Bioinformatics 28 2537 2539
Rehder, A. 1940 Manual of cultivated trees and shrubs hardy in North America. 2nd ed. Macmillan, New York, NY
Rohrer, J.R., Ahmad, R., Southwick, S.M. & Potter, D. 2004 Microsatellite analysis of relationships among North American plums (Prunus section Prunocerasus, Rosaceae) Plant Syst. Evol. 244 69 75
Rohrer, J.R., O’Brien, M.A. & Anderson, J.A. 2008 Phylogenetic analysis of North American plums (Prunus section Prunocerasus: Rosaceae) based on nuclear LEAFY and S6PDH sequences J. Bot. Res. Inst. Tex. 2 401 414
Sang, T., Crawford, D.J. & Stuessy, T.F. 1997 Chloroplast DNA phylogeny, reticulate evolution, and biogeography of Paeonia (Paeoniaceae) Amer. J. Bot. 84 1120 1136
Shaw, J., Lickey, E.B., Beck, J.T., Farmer, S.B., Liu, W., Miller, J., Siripun, K.C., Winder, C.T., Schilling, E.D. & Small, R.L. 2005 The tortoise and the hare II: Relative utility of 21 noncoding chloroplast DNA sequences for phylogenetic analysis Amer. J. Bot. 92 142 166
Shaw, J., Lickey, E.B., Schilling, E.E. & Small, R.L. 2007 Comparison of whole chloroplast genome sequences to choose noncoding regions for phylogenetic studies in angiosperms: The tortoise and the hare III Amer. J. Bot. 94 275 288
Shaw, J. & Small, R.L. 2004 Addressing the “hardest puzzle in the American pomology:” Phylogeny of Prunus section Prunocerasus (Rosaceae) based on seven noncoding chloroplast DNA regions Amer. J. Bot. 91 985 996
Shaw, J. & Small, R.L. 2005 Chloroplast DNA phylogeny and phylogeography of the North American Plums (Prunus subgenus Prunus section Prunocerasus, Rosaceae) Amer. J. Bot. 92 2011 2030
Small, R.L., Ryburn, J.A., Cronn, R.C., Seelanan, T. & Wendel, J.F. 1998 The tortoise and the hare: Choosing between noncoding plastome and nuclear Adh sequences for phylogeny reconstruction in a recently diverged plant group Amer. J. Bot. 85 1301 1315
Soltis, D.E. & Soltis, P.S. 1998 Choosing and approach and an appropriate gene for phylogenetic analysis, p. 1–42. In: D.E. Soltis, P.S. Soltis, and J.J. Doyle (eds.). Molecular systematics of plants II: DNA sequencing. Kluwer, Norwell, MA
Stamatakis, A. 2006 RAxML-VI-HPC: Maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models Bioinformatics 22 2688 2690
Swofford, D.L. 2002 PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (* and other methods) version 4.0b10. Sinauer Assoc., Sunderland, MA
Taberlet, P., Gielly, L., Pautou, G. & Bouvet, J. 1991 Universal primers for amplification of three non-coding regions of chloroplast DNA Plant Mol. Biol. 17 1105 1109
Untergasser, A., Cutcutache, I., Koressaar, T., Ye, J., Faircloth, B.C., Remm, M. & Rozen, S.G. 2012 Primer3-new capabilities and interfaces Nucl. Acids Res. 40 e115
Waugh, F.A. 1901 Plums and plum culture. Orange Judd, New York, NY
Wen, J., Berggren, S.T., Lee, C.-H., Ickert-Bond, S., Yi, T.-S., Yoo, K.-O., Xie, L., Shaw, J. & Potter, D. 2008 Phylogenetic inferences in Prunus (Rosaceae) using chloroplast ndhF and nuclear ribosomal ITS sequences J. Syst. Evol. 46 322 332
Wen, J. & Zimmer, E.A. 1996 Phylogeny and biogeography of Panax L. (the ginseng genus, Araliaceae): Inferences from ITS sequences of nuclear ribosomal DNA Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 6 166 177
Wight, W.F. 1915 Native American species of Prunus. U.S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 179
Zwickl, D.J. 2006 Genetic algorithm approaches for the phylogenetic analysis of large biological sequence datasets under the maximum likelihood criterion. PhD Diss., Univ. Texas, Austin, TX