The comparative analysis of the complete chloroplast genomes of Sargassum fusiforme , Sargassum horneri , and Sargassum thunbergii


Abstract

Sargassum is one of the most important genera of brown algae, playing a significant role in the development of marine food products, marine pharmaceuticals, and industrial raw materials. Currently, chloroplast genomes have been extensively applied in various fields, including molecular markers, species identification, and phylogenetics. In this study, the chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) sequences of different Sargassum species— S. fusiforme , S. horneri ( Floating type ), and S. thunbergii —were sequenced and analyzed. The chloroplast genomes of the three Sargassum species were annotated with a total of 173 genes, including 139 mRNAs, 28 tRNAs, and 6 rRNAs. The lengths of the cp genomes for the three species were 124,286 bp, 124,093 bp, and 124,574 bp, respectively. Each genome was divided by two inverted repeat (IR) regions (5,450 bp, 5,436 bp, and 5,446 bp), which were separated by the large single-copy (LSC) regions (73,342 bp, 73,342 bp, and 73,659 bp) and small single-copy (SSC) regions (39,960 bp, 39,879 bp, and 40,023 bp). The GC content of the three genomes was 30.43%, 30.58%, and 30.41%, respectively. In the genomes of the three Sargassum species, a total of 24, 29, and 34 long repeat sequences were detected, respectively. These included 2, 4, and 3 forward repeats; 31, 22, and 18 palindromic repeats; and 1, 3, and 3 reverse repeats. Additionally, a rich distribution of simple sequence repeats (SSRs) was identified, with 255, 230, and 221 SSRs detected in the three species, respectively. The SSR repeat types consisted of mononucleotide repeats (92, 92, and 89), dinucleotide repeats (12, 11, and 16), trinucleotide repeats (113, 116, and 110), and tetranucleotide repeats (7, 9, and 3); Both S. fusiforme and S. horneri contain one hexanucleotide repeat sequence, while S. horneri additionally includes one pentanucleotide repeat sequence. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that S. fusiforme , S. horneri , and S. thunbergii all belong to the genus Sargassum within the phylum Ochrophyta. Furthermore, S. fusiforme exhibits a closer phylogenetic relationship with S. thunbergii compared to S. horneri . In t his study , the structural and differential characteristics of the complete chloroplast genomes of S. fusiforme , S. horneri , and S. thunbergii were systematically analyzed and compared in their wild habitats. The findings provide scientific data support for a deeper understanding of the evolutionary traits, environmental adaptation characteristics, and gene functional features of chloroplasts within typical species of the Sargassum genus.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].