|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Genetic Relationship of Psilocybe Species...
#5667933 - 05/24/06 09:06 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Here is a phylogenetic tree of several Psilocybe and Panaeolus species (and others) constructed by sequencing LSU rRNA region (and/or ITS).
There has been a lot of discussion about relationships of these species as of late. Hopefully this will be very interesting to some of you.
The "unknowns" are all P. Cubensis.
-FF
edit: Changed pic and added 3 more trees!
 

Edited by fastfred (05/24/06 12:56 PM)
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Genetic Relationship of Psilocybe and Panaeolus Species... [Re: mycogirl]
#5705644 - 06/02/06 09:48 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Phylogenetic trees can be difficult to interpret sometimes. Some of the branches could have been arranged a little better I think.
It's hard to say why different P. cubensis samples get placed in different branches. Perhaps there is more genetic diversity than one would expect. Or perhaps using such a short and unconserved region of rDNA results in a greater than desired element of randomness. It should be noted that the ITS region is significantly more variable than the SSU and LSU regions. Any region variable enough to give good resolution at the species level is going to produce some artifacts though.
Despite some differences among the trees, they seem to show that P. cubensis is most closely related to: P. montana P. semilanceata P. australiana P. subaeruginosa P. subaeruginascens P. cyanescens Pa. sphintrinus
As to what the ITS region codes for... I don't think it codes for anything. I'm no expert, but I don't think it produces any sort of gene product.
Here is a diagram of some of these regions...

-------------------- It drinks the alcohol and abstains from the weed or else it gets the hose again. -Chemy The difference between the substances doesn't matter. This is a war on consciousness, on our right to the very essence of what we are. With no control over that, we have no need to speak of freedom or a free society. -fireseed "If we are going to have a war on marijuana, the least we can do is pull the sick and the dying off the battlefield." -Neal Levine (MPP) I find the whole "my drug should be legal but yours should be illegal" mindset disgusting and hypocritical. It's what George Bush and company do when they drink a cocktail and debate the best way to imprison marijuana users. -Diploid
|
Alan Rockefeller
Mycologist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,271
Last seen: 10 hours, 1 minute
|
Re: Genetic Relationship of Psilocybe and Panaeolus Species... [Re: fastfred] 1
#20727184 - 10/19/14 11:52 PM (9 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fastfred said: It's hard to say why different P. cubensis samples get placed in different branches. Perhaps there is more genetic diversity than one would expect. Or perhaps using such a short and unconserved region of rDNA results in a greater than desired element of randomness. It should be noted that the ITS region is significantly more variable than the SSU and LSU regions. Any region variable enough to give good resolution at the species level is going to produce some artifacts though.
Probably because some of them were not P. cubensis.
Quote:
Despite some differences among the trees, they seem to show that P. cubensis is most closely related to: P. montana P. semilanceata P. australiana P. subaeruginosa P. subaeruginascens P. cyanescens Pa. sphintrinus
Psilocybe cubensis is not closely related to any of those species. P. cubensis is closely related to P. ovoideocystidiata, P. subcubensis and P. chuxiongensis.
Quote:
As to what the ITS region codes for... I don't think it codes for anything. I'm no expert, but I don't think it produces any sort of gene product.
I agree with that. If it coded for anything, it wouldn't be useful for species level differentiation.
Quote:
fastfred said: It's hard to say. I would guess that it's just an artifact. On the other hand it could be a bad sample, problems with the sequencing, etc.. The ITS sequences could be either too similar amongst the samples or too different for making a good phylogenetic tree. One thing I just noticed is that there are 3 ITS-1 sequences in GenBank... Two are complete and the third is only a partial sequence. That could account for the discrepancy. It's pretty sloppy if they let a partial sequence cause a difference like that, but I'm sure it happens.
That is too small. When I see sequences of that length, I just delete them. If the people who made the sequences knew what they were doing, they would be around 700 base pairs.
Quote:
ITS-1 is only 234-236 bp long, so it's a very small region. It's become one of the most, if not the most, popular region to sequence in fungi for molecular systematics
Its1f/its4b primers give around 750 base pairs.
Quote:
I checked the P. cubensis and P. subcubensis sequences and they are identical. So it looks like the "subcubensis" is another example of someone trying to inflate a tiny phenotypical difference into "the discovery of a new species". Ha! It's worse than the professor hyping the redspore.
My analysis shows they are a little bit different, but more sequences with spore size measurements are needed.
Here is my most recent Psilocybe ITS tree:
|
|