02436nas a2200253   4500008004100000245011800041210006900159260000800228300001300236490000600249520162000255653001501875653001501890653001101905653002001916653001401936653002601950653001601976100001401992700001202006700001602018700001202034856013602046       2006                        eng d00aHeterogeneity of three molecular data partition phylogenies of mints related to M. x piperita (Mentha; Lamiaceae)0 aHeterogeneity of three molecular data partition phylogenies of m  cJul  a470–850 v83 aPhylogenetic reconstructions with molecular tools are now widely used, thanks to advances in PCR and sequencing technologies. The choice of the molecular target still remains a problem because too few comparative data are available. This is particularly true for hybrid taxa, where differential introgression of genome parts leads to incongruity between data sets. We have studied the potential of three data partitions to reconstruct the phylogeny of mints related to M. x piperita. These included nuclear DNA (ITS), chloroplast DNA (non-coding regions trnL intron, intergenic spacers trnL-trnF, and psbA-trnH), and AFLP and ISSR, markers. The taxonomic sampling was composed of hybrids, diploid and polyploid genomes. Since the genealogy of cultivated mint hybrids is known, they represent a model group to compare the usefulness of various molecular markers for phylogeny inference. Incongruities between ITS, chloroplast DNA, and AFLP-ISSR phylogenetic trees were recorded, although DNA fingerprinting data were congruent with morphological classification. Evidence of chloroplast capture events was obtained for M. x piperita. Direct sequencing of ITS led to biased results because of the existence of pseudogenes. Sequencing of cloned ITS further failed to provide evidence of the existence of the two parental copy types for M. x piperita, a sterile hybrid that has had no opportunity for concerted evolution of ITS copies. AFLP-ISSR data clustered M. x piperita with the parent that had the largest genome. This study sheds light on differential of introgression of different genome regions in mint hybrids.10aDNA: Plant10aHaplotypes10aMentha10aMentha piperita10aPhylogeny10aPolymorphism: Genetic10aPseudogenes1 aGobert, V1 aMoja, S1 aTaberlet, P1 aWink, M  uhttps://lamiaceae.myspecies.info/content/heterogeneity-three-molecular-data-partition-phylogenies-mints-related-m-x-piperita-mentha01923nas a2200133   4500008004100000245011500041210006900156300001400225490000700239520138400246100001601630700001201646856013101658       1994                        eng d00aMolecular systematics of the Nepetoideae (family Labiatae): phylogenetic implications from rbcL gene sequences0 aMolecular systematics of the Nepetoideae family Labiatae phyloge  a635–6450 v493 aTotal DNA was extracted from 41 species (20 genera) of the subfamily Nepetoideae (family Labiatae). Using rbcl-specific primers, the rbcL gene was amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and sequenced directly. RbcL sequences were evaluated with character state (maximum parsimony; PAUP) and distance methods (neighbour-joining; MEGA). In agreement with classical systematics all taxa studied cluster within the Nepetoideae and are clearly distinguished from members of the subfamily Lamioideae. A number of distinctive clades are apparent within the Nepetoideae: I - Collinsonia, II - Lavandula, III - Agastache, Glechoma, IV - Satureja, Hyssopus, Dracocephalum, V - Nepeta, VI - Hormium, VII - Prunella, VIII - Melissa, Ocimum, IX - Monarda, Mentha, X - Origanum, Thymus, XI - Salvia, XII - Rosmarinus, and XIII - Perovskia. At least five main branches representing the clades I, II, III to VII, VIII, and IX to XIII respectively, can be distinguished within the Nepetoideae studied. They might be considered representing the tribes (according to Cantino, 1992) Elsholtzieae (I), Lavanduleae (II), and Mentheae (III-XIII). The tribe Mentheae needs to be subdivided into at least three main groups (clades III-VII; VIII and IX-XIII). Majorana hortensis which is often classified as Origanum hortensis does not cluster with Origanum and deserves a generic status of its own.1 aKaufmann, M1 aWink, M  uhttps://lamiaceae.myspecies.info/content/molecular-systematics-nepetoideae-family-labiatae-phylogenetic-implications-rbcl-gene00474nas a2200109   4500008004100000245009700041210006900138300001100207490000700218100001200225856012700237       2003                        eng d00aEvolution of secondary metabolites from an ecological and molecular phylogenetic perspective0 aEvolution of secondary metabolites from an ecological and molecu  a3–190 v641 aWink, M  uhttps://lamiaceae.myspecies.info/content/evolution-secondary-metabolites-ecological-and-molecular-phylogenetic-perspective01755nas a2200157   4500008004100000245014900041210006900190300000900259490000700268520113400275100001501409700001501424700001701439700001201456856012901468       2004                        eng d00aSalvia (Lamiaceae) is not monophyletic: implications for the systematics, radiation, and ecological specializations of Salvia and tribe Mentheae0 aSalvia Lamiaceae is not monophyletic implications for the system  a11150 v913 aSalvia, with over 900 species from both the Old and New World, is the largest genus in the Lamiaceae. Unlike most members of the subfamily Nepetoideae to which it belongs, only two stamens are expressed in Salvia. Although the structure of these stamens is remarkably variable across the genus, generally each stamen has an elongate connective and divergent anther thecae, which form a lever mechanism important in pollination. In a preliminary investigation of infrageneric relationships within Salvia, the monophyly of the genus and its relationship to other members of the tribe Mentheae were investigated using the chloroplast DNA regions rbcL and trnL-F. Significant conclusions drawn from the data include: Salvia is not monophyletic, Rosmarinus and Perovskia together are sister to an Old World clade of Salvia, the section Audibertia is sister to subgenus Calosphace or the monotypic Asian genus Dorystaechas, and the New World members of section Heterosphace are sister to section Salviastrum. Owing to the non-monophyly of Salvia, relationships at the next clearly monophyletic level, tribe Mentheae, were investigated.1 aWalker, JB1 aSytsma, KJ1 aTreutlein, J1 aWink, M  uhttps://lamiaceae.myspecies.info/content/salvia-lamiaceae-not-monophyletic-implications-systematics-radiation-and-ecological