https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5453-6084
Figures
Abstract
In this study, 18 mitochondrial genomes (mitogenomes) of Syrphidae were sequenced. These mitogenomes ranged from 15,648 to 16,405 bp and contained 37 genes that were similar to those from other Syrphidae species. Most protein-coding genes (PCGs) started with a standard ATN codon and ended with TAA/G. All transfer RNAs (tRNAs) could be folded into the cloverleaf secondary structure except tRNA-Ser (AGN), which lacks a dihydrouridine arm. The secondary structures of ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs) were predicted. Six domains (III is absent in arthropods) and 44 helices were included in the 16S rRNA, and three domains and 24 helices were included in the 12S rRNA. We found three conserved fragments in all syrphid mitogenomes. Phylogenetic analyses were performed based on the nucleotide data of 13 PCGs and two rRNAs from 76 Muscomorpha and three outgroup species. In results the paraphyly of Aschiza and Schizophora were supported, the Acalyptratae was also paraphyletic but the relationships of its superfamilies were difficult to determine, the monophyly of Calyptratea was supported with the relationships of Oestroidea and Muscoidea need to be further reconsidered. Within Syrphidae the monophyly of family level was supported, the Syrphinae were clustered into one branch, while the paraphyly of Eristalinae was still well supported.
Citation: Li H, Yan Y, Li J (2023) Eighteen mitochondrial genomes of Syrphidae (Insecta: Diptera: Brachycera) with a phylogenetic analysis of Muscomorpha. PLoS ONE 18(1): e0278032. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032
Editor: Bi-Song Yue, Sichuan University, CHINA
Received: February 7, 2022; Accepted: November 8, 2022; Published: January 5, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All sequences’ files are available from the NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) database (accession numbers: MZ286965, MZ202394, MZ202393, MZ315034, MZ420564, MZ398236, MZ361706, MW172433, MW307783, MZ272471, MZ329813, MZ292750, MW727270, MW727271, MW172435, MW690641, MW727269, MW172434).
Funding: This research was supported by a "City-University Co-construction" Scientific Research Project for State Key Laboratory of Biological Resources and Ecological Environment of Qinling-Bashan (No. SXJ-2102), and a Scientific Research Program Funded by Shaanxi Provincial Education Department (No. 21JK0568). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
The Muscomorpha (Diptera: Brachycera), an infraorder of Brachycera, consists of two groups, Aschiza and Schizophora, plus the unranked clade Cyclorrhapha [1–4]. The monophyly of several of these groups is debated. The evolution of Aschiza has been considered one of the most challenging phylogenetic questions in dipterology [1]. Aschiza contains two superfamiles: Syrphoidea and Platypezoidea. Syrphoidea was suggested to be paraphyletic in some previous studies [1,2,5], while Li [6], Pu et al., [7] and Skevington and Yeates [8] argued Syrphoidea is monophyletic. Schizophora underwent a recent, rapid radiation of lineages, and so represents most of the family-level diversity in Diptera. Relationships among Schizophora are poorly supported with the available data and their robust resolution remains a major challenge [2]. Schizophora is divided into two subsections, Acalyptratae and Calyptratea [4,7,9]. The Acalyptratae seemed paraphyletic in Ramakodi et al., [10] and Wiegmann et al., [2]. The monophyly of Calyptratea is supported, but most classifications of the Calyptratea divide the group into Hippoboscoidea, Muscoidea and Oestroidea, with the relationships between these superfamilies controversial [11]. In this study, we collected the published mitogenome data from each superfamily in Muscomorpha (Table 1), generated phylogenetic trees, and discussed their phylogenetic relationships to try to solve the current controversy.
Syrphidae, or hover flies or flower flies, is one of the larger families in Muscomorpha, and includes more than 6200 species around the world [48]. Most syrphid adults are flower visitors that feed on pollen and nectar, and many are important pollinators for natural ecosystems and agricultural crops [49,50]. Syrphid larvae, however, can be phytophagous, mycophagous, saprophagous, or predacious, and have diverse habitats [51]: phytophages can be found in the xylem of plants [52,53]; mycophages survive in fungal fruiting bodies [54]; saprophages live in environments rich in organic matter such as dung, nests of social Hymenoptera, decaying wood, and several types of freshwater bodies; and predacious syrphids are important natural enemies of aphids [55,56]. Several taxonomic classification systems for Syrphidae were built based on different morphological characteristics. The most well-known is the three-subfamily system comprised of Syrphinae, Eristalinae, and Microdontinae [1,53,57]. Some studies combining morphological and genomic data suggest the Syrphinae tribe Pipizini should be elevated to its own subfamily, Pipizinae [12,48,51,58]. Most previous studies agreed that Syrphinae, Pipizinae/Pipizini, and Microdontinae are monophyletic, while the monophyly of Eristalinae is debated [8,9,48,57].
The insect complete mitochondrial genome (or mitogenome) is a covalently closed, double-stranded DNA molecule consisting of 37 genes: 13 protein-coding genes (PCGs), 22 transfer RNAs (tRNAs), and two ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs) [59]. As they have some convenient characteristics, such as a small size (approximately 14–21 kb), lack of extensive recombination, conserved gene content, matrilineal inheritance, and relatively high evolutionary rate, complete mitogenomes are regularly applied to the study of comparative and evolutionary genomics and phylogenetic analysis [60–63].
In this study, we collected published mitogenome data from GenBank from every superfamily in Muscomorpha (Table 1). We then constructed phylogenetic trees to confirm the monophyly of Aschiza, Schizophora, and their inner superfamilies. We also added 18 new mitogenomes and collected all published mitogenomes of Syrphidae (ten Syrphinae and eight Eristalinae) to perform a more in-depth and comprehensive analysis of the phylogenetic relationship of Syrphidae.
Materials and methods
Sampling and DNA extraction
Samples of 18 species of Syrphidae (Table 1) that had been preserved in absolute ethanol and stored at -20°C were obtained from the preserved insect collections of the Museum of Zoology and Botany, Shaanxi University of Technology, Hanzhong, China. These were identified by Hu Li, Yan Yan, and Juan Li.
The specimens were dried after being removed from the absolute ethanol, and the legs and thoraxes of one specimen per species were used as samples for DNA extraction. The samples were manually ground into small particles (diameter ≤1 mm) using a grinding rod. Genomic DNA was extracted using a TIANamp Genomic DNA Kit (Tiangen, Beijing, China). The ground tissue was maintained at 56°C for six hours to completely lyse cells, while the remaining steps were conducted in accordance with the manufacturer’s protocol. The resulting genomic DNA was stored at −20°C.
Sequencing assembly and annotation
The 18 complete mitogenomic sequences were sequenced using an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform and assembled with Geneious R9 [64]. Thirteen PCGs were identified using the invertebrate mitochondrial genetic code setting in ORF Finder, and PCG base composition and codon usage patterns were analyzed using MEGA 7 [65]. The locations and secondary structures of 22 tRNA genes were identified and predicted using tRNA scan-SE 1.21 [66] and ARWEN 1.2 [67]. Two rRNA genes were determined based on the locations of adjacent tRNAs genes and compared with the genes of other Syrphid mitogenomes, and the secondary structures of 16S rRNA and 12S rRNA were predicted according to data from other species [68–72]. Helical elements were predicted using ClustalX 1.81 and RNA Structure 5.2 [73]. The AT skew, GC skew, and A+T content were used to characterize the nucleotide composition of the mitogenomes [74,75]. Strand asymmetry was calculated using the following formulas: AT skew = (A–T) / (A+T), and GC skew = (G–C) / (G+C) [76,77].
Phylogenetic analysis
To make a Muscomorpha mitogenome phylogenetic tree, we combined our 18 Syrphidae mitogenomes with all other complete, published Syrphidae mitogenomes, as well as two complete mitogenomes from each other family of Muscomorpha as representatives (Table 1) due to too many species in some families. Phylogenetic analyses of mitogenome data are known to be susceptible to compositional bias, particularly of the third codon positions in the PCGs [60], and particularly in the Diptera [22,31]. To reduce this bias, we built maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI) phylogenetic trees based on three different datasets: (1) PCGs: all position of the PCGs (11607 bp); (2) PCG12: first and second codon positions of the PCGs (7582 bp); (3) PCG12RNA: the first and the second codon positions of the PCGs and two rRNA genes (9496 bp). The third codon was omitted from the latter two datasets because the third codon positions of PCGs may suffer from mutation saturation, which can lead to noise during phylogenetic analysis [78,79]. Because tRNA genes are highly conserved, they were not considered for phylogenetic tree construction.
Each of the PCGs was aligned with the MAFFT algorithm in Phylosuite [80] and translated according to the Invertebrate Mitochondrial genetic code, then the terminal codons were removed. The rRNA genes were aligned with MAFFT using the G-INS-i strategy [81], and the poorly aligned positions and divergent regions were removed using Gblocks 0.91b [82]. All sequences were assessed and manually concatenated using Phylosuite [80].
The heterogeneity of sequence divergence within the three datasets was analyzed using ALIGROOVE with the default sliding window size [83]. The best partitioning schemes and corresponding nucleotide substitution models were determined using PartitionFinder2 in Phylosuite [80] with the corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc) and greedy search algorithm [84].
Maximum likelihood (ML) analysis was performed using IQ-TREE [85], and evaluated using the ultrafast bootstrap approximation approach for 1,000 replicates. Bayesian inference (BI) analyses were performed using MrBayes 3.3.6 in Phylosuite, with two simultaneous Markov chain runs of 10,000,000 generations with sampling every 1000 generations. The phylogenetic trees were visualized using FigTree 1.4.2.
Results
Genome structure and nucleotide composition
The 18 new mitogenome sequences have been deposited in GenBank (Accession Numbers in Table 1). Their gene order and organization were similar to previously published Syrphidae mitogenomes, containing 13 protein-coding genes (PCGs), 22 transfer RNAs (tRNAs), two ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs), and a D-loop region. A total of 23 genes (14 tRNAs and nine PCGs) are encoded on the majority strand (J-strand) and 14 genes (eight tRNAs, four PCGs, and two rRNAs) on the minority strand (N-strand) (S1–S18 Tables). The whole lengths of the 18 mitogenomes ranged from 15,648 bp (Parhelophilus kurentzovi) to 16,405 bp (Epistrophe lamellata) (Figs 1 and 2). The genes of D-loop that affect the difference in whole lengths (S1–S18 Tables). The mitogenome A+T contents ranged from 81.3% to 77.7%, and they displayed a strong A+T bias, which is typical of insect mitogenomes [59,64].
The species from inside to outside are as follows: Epistrophe zibaiensis Huo, Ren et Zheng, 2007, Epistrophe lamellata Huo, Ren et Zheng, 2007, Epistrophe bashanensis Huo, Ren et Zheng, 2007, Dideoides latus Coquillett, 1898, Betasyrphus serarius Wiedemann, 1830, Asarkina ericetorum Fabricius, 1781, Allograpta javana Wiedemann, 1824, Eupeodes latifasciatus Macquart, 1829, Eupeodes luniger Meigen, 1822 and Eupeodes confrater Wiedemann, 1830.
The species from inside to outside are as follows: Eristalis himalayensis Brunetti 1908, Eristalis arbustorum Linnaeus, 1758, Mallota bellus Li, 1997, Mallota vilis Wiedemann, 1830, Mallota viridiflavescentis Huo et Ren, 2006, Mesembrius niger Sbiraki, 1968, Parhelophilus kurentzovi Violovitsh, 1960 and Phytomia errans Fabricius, 1787.
Protein-coding genes
The A+T contents of the 13 PCGs combined for each species ranged from 75.3% to 79.1%. Most of the PCGs’ start codons used ATN (ATA/ATT/ATC/ATG), while a few PCGs were initiated by TCG, GTG, or TTG. Among the 18 species’ PCGs, COX2, COX3, ATP6, ND4L and Cytb used TAA as the stop codon, and all other genes ended with TAG or the incomplete forms TA- or T—(S1–S18 Tables).
In order to investigate the evolutionary rates of the 13 PCGs in Syrphidae, we calculated the value of Ka (non-synonymous substitutions), Ks (synonymous substitutions), and Ka/Ks for each PCG. The Ka/Ks value of all 13 PCGs were lower than 1, which indicated they are under relaxed selection pressure. The gene ATP8 showed the highest evolutionary rate (Ka/Ks = 0.60), while COXI exhibited the lowest rate (Ka/Ks = 0.07) (Fig 3) as expected: for that reason, COXI has been used as a DNA barcode for the identification of various species [65].
Transfer and ribosomal genes
Each of the 18 syrphid species’ mitogenomes included 22 tRNAs: 14 were encoded on the J-strand and eight encoded on the N-strand. The lengths ranged from 64 to 80 bp. Their secondary structure suggests they can be folded into the typical clover-leaf structure of tRNAs, except for tRNA-Ser1, which lacked a dihydrouridine arm (DHU). Several unmatched base pairs (U-U, U-G, A-C, A-G, A-A) were also observed (Fig 4 and S1–S18 Figs). The lengths of each of the 22 types of tRNA were fixed across all eighteen species, and the sequences were also highly conserved. There were only individual site variations that were consistent across the subfamilies. For example: sites 27, 28, 36, 46 and 60 of tRNA-Ile were always C, U, A, A, U in Syrphinae, and U, C, G, G and C in Eristalinae. Other examples are shown in Fig 4. We suspected that the directed variation of these loci may correlate with the phylogeny of the species.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing. The conserved sites and variable sites are indicated with the black and red, respectively.
16S rRNAs and 12S rRNAs were both located in the N-strand. 16S rRNA was located between tRNA-L1 (UUR) and tRNA-V, and 12S rRNA was between tRNA-V and the D-loop region. The secondary structure of 16S rRNA was comprised of five domains (I, II, IV, V, and VI; domain III is absent in arthropods) and 44 helices (Fig 5), with domain IV showing higher sequence conservation than other domains (S19–S36 Figs). 12S rRNA was comprised of three domains and 24 helices, with domain III showing the highest conservation (Fig 6 and S37–S54 Figs).
Dashes (-) indicate Watson-Crick base pairing, GU pairs are connected by dots (·), and the variable sites are indicated in red.
Dashes (-) indicate Watson-Crick base pairing, GU pairs are connected by dots (·), and the variable sites are indicated in red.
Intergenic space and overlap region
Three conserved regions were found in the intergenic space and overlap regions of the Syrphidae mitogenomes. These were the overlap area between COXI and Leu1 (TCTAA), the overlap area between ATP8 and ATP6 (ATGATAA), and one intergenic space between ND1 and Leu2 (AAAACAAG).
D-loops
The D-loops of the Syrphidae mitogenomes have large variety, the length between 811 bp and 1410 bp. The gene of D-loops is the most important factors of the whole lengths of mitogenome in Syrphidae.
Phylogenetic analysis
Detecting the base heterogeneity of mitogenome datasets used for constructing a phylogenetic tree is important, as strong heterogeneity can cause major errors [86–88]. On the basis of the calculation results obtained from the AliGROOVE [83], the heterogeneities of the PCG, PCG12, and PCG12RNA datasets were weak (Fig 7). Hence, the three datasets could be used to construct a phylogenetic tree.
The mean similarity score between sequences is represented by color. The dark red (+1) to dark blue (-1) represent differences from heavy to light.
The ML and BI phylogenetic trees were reconstructed based on 76 Muscomorpha species and three outgroup species using three datasets to account for third codon compositional bias (PCG12RNA, PCG12, and PCGs), with the best partitioning scheme and models selected by PartitionFinder2. These six phylogenetic trees (three ML and three BI) had generally high support, with most nodes receiving high nodal support values and only a few nodes receiving moderate or low support (Figs 7 and 8).
In all resulting trees, all the Diptera families were monophyletic with strong support, with the exception of Anthomyiidae, which was paraphyletic in the PCG12RNA-ML tree (Fig 8E). Superfamilies were not necessarily monophyletic. The superfamily Syrphoidea was only monophyletic in the PCGRNA-BI tree; in other trees, Pipunculus sp. (Syrphoidea: Pipunculidae) always clustered with Trypetoptera punctulata (Sciomyzoidea: Sciomyzidae). Except in the PCG-ML and PCG12-BI trees, the superfamily Sciomyzoidea was paraphyletic, with Nemopoda mamaevi (Sciomyzoidea: Sepsidae) inferred as sister group to the Lauxanioidea. Oestroidea was always paraphyletic, with differing relationships between families depending on the dataset used (Fig 8).
Both the BI and ML phylogenetic analyses of Syrphidae showed similar topology across all three datasets (Fig 9 and S55–S59 Figs). The monophyly of the subfamily Syrphinae was supported, within which the tribe Syrphini was clustered together with strong nodal supports, and the tribe Melanostomini was sister to Syrphini. The subfamily Eristalinae was paraphyletic in relation to Syrphinae. In particular, a monophyletic clade containing four putatively Eristalinae species appeared more closely related to the Syrphinae than the other Eristalinae, with the following topology: (((Ferdinandea cuprea + Korinchia angustiabdomena) + Volucella nigricans) + Orthonevra geniculata).
Discussion
The mitogenomes from the 18 Syrphidae species in this study had similar genome length, genome structure, and nucleotide compositions as other Syrphidae mitogenomes, with many conserved regions. The results were in agreement with previous papers on Syrphidae, Diptera, and Insecta mitogenomes. The gene orders are similar with the arthropod ancestral mitochondrial genome. The conserved sequence (ATGATAA) in the overlap between ATP8 and ATP6 was found in other Muscomorpha insect mitogenomes, and is known from other insects, such as Fulgoroidae (Hemiptera) and Cercopidae (Hemiptera) [66,67]. This region was thought to be translated as a bicstron [68]. Those conserved fragment might play an important role in transcription and controlling the length of PCGs [69].
The lengths of every PCG in all 43 Syrphidae mitogenomes did not differ significantly, varying by no more than 35 bp, with the exception of COXI at 141 bp. This is expected from the relatively conserved characteristics of mitogenome PCGs. The limited length variations in all tRNAs and rRNAs observed among different species were mainly due to their stable secondary structures [89].
The most common nucleotide in the first codon position of the PCG start codon was A, followed by T in the second codon position. The stop codon was TA- or T—. The frequent use of these codons is an important reason for the A+T content being greater than the G+C content, as observed in other insect mitogenomes [90]. One reason for this base composition bias is asymmetric mutations that occurred during replication and transcription, and selective pressures after asymmetric mutations [17,74,91].
When these data were combined with other Muscomorpha mitogenomes, the resulting trees’ results agreed with some previous papers and disagreed with others. The choice of dataset and phylogenetic analysis method (ML or BI) affected some results. The PCG12-ML tree was most consistent with our point of view and previous morphological classifications about Syrphidae (Fig 9) [53,57].
Our results supported the paraphyly of Aschiza and Schizophora. The Platypezoidea diverged first, sister to the other species of Muscomorpha (Fig 8). The paraphyly of Syrphoidea due to Pipinculidae being closely related to the Schizophora and Opomyzoidea (Fig 8A–8E) supports previous findings [1,2,5].
The Acalyptratae was paraphyletic in our results. The superfamilies Ephydroidea, Tephritoidea, Lauxanioidea, and Opomyzoidea were monophyletic (Fig 8B, 8C, 8D and 8F). The superfamily Sciomyzoidea was paraphyletic. The family Sepsidae clustered with Lauxanioidea, and the Sciomyzidae was sister to Pipunculidae (Fig 8B–8D). The relationships of the Acalyptratae families remain obscure, likely because few characters were accumulated since the first Schizophora radiation, when these early lineages diverged rapidly [2]. More molecular information for the Acalyptratae is needed.
The monophyly of Calyptratea was supported. Its cluster formed almost as (Hippoboscoidea + (Oestroidea + (Muscoidea + Oestroidea))), and the family-level topology was always (Hippoboscidae + (Tachinidae + Oestridae) + (Anthomyiidae + (Muscoidae + (Sarcophagidae + Calliphoridae))))) (Fig 8A, 8C, 8E and 8F). Muscoidae was paraphyletic, as found in previous studies [2,11,35]. The monophyly of Oestroidea had been debated in previous mitogenome-based phylogenetic studies. Pu et al. [7], Wiegmann et al. [2], and Kutty et al. [11] concluded Oestroidea was monophyletic, while Li et al. [35] found Oestroidea was only monophyletic in PCG12RNA-BI and PCG12-BI trees, but paraphyletic in other datasets (PCG123, PCGRNA, PCG12-ML and PCG12RNA-ML). In our results, the superfamily Oestroidea was always paraphyletic, forming a monophyletic clade together with the superfamily Muscoidea [6,35]. This phenomenon may result from the limited mitogenomic data for these groups, so more mitogenome data for Oestroidea and Muscoidea could resolve this disagreement.
The phylogenetic analyses of Syrphidae found the subfamily Eristalinae was paraphyletic in relation to Syrphinae (Fig 9), in agreement with the results of Mengual et al. [51], Skevington and Yeates [8], and Young et al. [48]. Our results supported the monophyly of the tribe Eristalini in accordance with previous studies [9,51]. The taxonomic status of some species could not be resolved by these trees. For example, in the PCGs dataset (S55 and S56 Figs), Asarkina ericetorum was most closely related to Dideoides latus, while in other trees it was more closely related to Ocyptamus sativus and Platycheirus albimanus. Also, while the topology of (Eristalinus viridis + Mallota bellus) was well supported, the position of this clade was less stable (Fig 9). The genera of Epistrophe, Eupeodes and Mallota were not restored monophyletic in our study. The mitogenome information inferred in this study is limited, warranting the sampling of more taxa to confirm the conclusions reached here.
In this study, we found three unique, conserved fragments in all syrphid mitogenomes. Phylogenetic analyses were performed based on the nucleotide data of 13 PCGs and two rRNAs from 76 Muscomorpha and three outgroup species. Our results supported the paraphyly of Aschiza and Schizophora. The Acalyptratae was paraphyletic and the relationships of its superfamilies were difficult to determine. The monophyly of Calyptratea was supported, but the relationships of Oestroidea and Muscoidea need to be reconsidered. The monophyly of Syrphidae was supported. The Syrphinae were clustered into one branch, while the paraphyly of Eristalinae was strongly supported. We discussed the phylogenetic relationship of Muscomorpha using the latest comprehensive data, which we hope will provide a base reference for further phylogenetic analysis of Muscomorpha and the Diptera.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Allograpta javana in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Asarkina ericetorum in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s002
(DOCX)
S3 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Betasyrphus serarius in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s003
(DOCX)
S4 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Dideoides latus in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s004
(DOCX)
S5 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Epistrophe bashanensis in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s005
(DOCX)
S6 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Epistrophe lamellata in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s006
(DOCX)
S7 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Epistrophe latifasciatus in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s007
(DOCX)
S8 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Epistrophe zibaiensis in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s008
(DOCX)
S9 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Eristalis arbustorum in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s009
(DOCX)
S10 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Eristalis himalayensis in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s010
(DOCX)
S11 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Eupeodes confrater in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s011
(DOCX)
S12 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Eupeodes luniger in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s012
(DOCX)
S13 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Mallota bellus in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s013
(DOCX)
S14 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Mallota vilis in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s014
(DOCX)
S15 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Mesembrius niger in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s015
(DOCX)
S16 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Mallota viridiflavescentis in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s016
(DOCX)
S17 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Parhelophilus kurentzovi in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s017
(DOCX)
S18 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of tRNA of Phytomia errans in this study.
The “-” indicates Watson-Crick base pairing and “•” indicates non-Watson-Crick base pairing.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s018
(DOCX)
S19 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Allograpta javana mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s019
(DOCX)
S20 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Asarkina ericetorum mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s020
(DOCX)
S21 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Betasyrphus serarius mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s021
(DOCX)
S22 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Dideoides latus mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s022
(DOCX)
S23 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Epistrophe bashanensis mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s023
(DOCX)
S24 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Epistrophe lamellata mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s024
(DOCX)
S25 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Epistrophe latifasciatus mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s025
(DOCX)
S26 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Epistrophe zibaiensis mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s026
(DOCX)
S27 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Eristalis arbustorum mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s027
(DOCX)
S28 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Eristalis himalayensis mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s028
(DOCX)
S29 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Eupeodes confrater mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s029
(DOCX)
S30 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Eupeodes luniger mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s030
(DOCX)
S31 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Mallota bellus mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s031
(DOCX)
S32 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Mallota vilis mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s032
(DOCX)
S33 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Mesembrius niger mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s033
(DOCX)
S34 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Mallota viridiflavescentis mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s034
(DOCX)
S35 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Parhelophilus kurentzovi mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s035
(DOCX)
S36 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Phytomia errans mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s036
(DOCX)
S37 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 16S rRNA of the Allograpta javana mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s037
(DOCX)
S38 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Asarkina ericetorum mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s038
(DOCX)
S39 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Betasyrphus serarius mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s039
(DOCX)
S40 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Dideoides latus mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s040
(DOCX)
S41 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Epistrophe bashanensis mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s041
(DOCX)
S42 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Epistrophe lamellata mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s042
(DOCX)
S43 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Epistrophe latifasciatus mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s043
(DOCX)
S44 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Epistrophe zibaiensis mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s044
(DOCX)
S45 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Eristalis arbustorum mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s045
(DOCX)
S46 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Eristalis himalayensis mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s046
(DOCX)
S47 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Eupeodes confrater mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s047
(DOCX)
S48 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Eupeodes luniger mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s048
(DOCX)
S49 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Mallota bellus mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s049
(DOCX)
S50 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Mallota vilis mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s050
(DOCX)
S51 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Mesembrius niger mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s051
(DOCX)
S52 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Mallota viridiflavescentis mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s052
(DOCX)
S53 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Parhelophilus kurentzovi mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s053
(DOCX)
S54 Fig. Prediction of the secondary structure of the 12S rRNA of the Phytomia errans mitogenome.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s054
(DOCX)
S55 Fig. Phylogenetic tree of Muscomorpha.
Inferred based on the 13 PCGs using ML.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s055
(DOCX)
S56 Fig. Phylogenetic tree of Muscomorpha.
Inferred based on the 13 PCGs using BI.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s056
(DOCX)
S57 Fig. Phylogenetic tree of Muscomorpha.
Inferred based on the first and second codons of the PCG12 using BI.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s057
(DOCX)
S58 Fig. Phylogenetic tree of Muscomorpha.
Inferred based on the first and second codons of the 13 PCGs and 2 rRNAs using ML.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s058
(DOCX)
S59 Fig. Phylogenetic tree of Muscomorpha.
Inferred based on the first and second codons of the 13 PCGs and 2 rRNAs using BI.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s059
(DOCX)
S1 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Allograpta javana.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s060
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Asarkina ericetorum.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s061
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Betasyrphus serarius.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s062
(DOCX)
S4 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Dideoides latus.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s063
(DOCX)
S5 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Epistrophe bashanensis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s064
(DOCX)
S6 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Epistrophe lamellate.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s065
(DOCX)
S7 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Epistrophe latifasciatus.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s066
(DOCX)
S8 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Epistrophe zibaiensis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s067
(DOCX)
S9 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Eristalis arbustorum.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s068
(DOCX)
S10 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Eristalis himalayensis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s069
(DOCX)
S11 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Eupeodes confrater.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s070
(DOCX)
S12 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Eupeodes luniger.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s071
(DOCX)
S13 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Mallota bellus.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s072
(DOCX)
S14 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Mallota vilis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s073
(DOCX)
S15 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Mesembrius niger.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s074
(DOCX)
S16 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Mallota viridiflavescentis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s075
(DOCX)
S17 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Parhelophilus kurentzovi.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s076
(DOCX)
S18 Table. Gene organization of the complete mitogenome of Phytomia errans.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278032.s077
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Pauli T, Burt TO, Meusemann K, Bayless K, Donath A, Podsiadlowski L. et al. New data, same story: phylogenomics does not support Syrphoidea (Diptera: Syrphidae, Pipunculidae). Syst Entomol. 2018; 43:447–59.
- 2. Wiegmann BM, Trautwein MD, Winkler IS, Barr NB, Kim JW, Lambkin C, et al. Episodic radiations in the fly tree of life. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(14):5690–5. pmid:21402926.
- 3. Lambkin CL, Sinclair BJ, Pape T, Courtney GW, Skevington JH, Meier R, et al. The phylogenetic relationships among infraorders and superfamilies of Diptera based on morphological evidence. Syst Entomol 2013;38:164–79. pmid:21402926.
- 4. Yeates DK, Wiegmann BM. Congruence and controversy: toward a higher-level phylogeny of Diptera. Annu Rev Entomol. 1999;44:397–428. pmid:15012378.
- 5. Collins KP, Wiegmann BM. Phylogenetic relationships of the lower Cyclorrhapha (Diptera: Brachycera) based on 28SrDNA sequences. Insect Syst Evol. 2002;33:445–56.
- 6. Characterization Li H. and Phylogenetic Implications of the Complete Mitochondrial Genome of Syrphidae. Genes. 2019;10(8). pmid:31349702.
- 7. Pu DQ, Liu HL, Gong YY, Ji PC, Li YJ, Mou FS, et al. Mitochondrial genomes of the hoverflies Episyrphus balteatus and Eupeodes corollae (Diptera: Syrphidae), with a phylogenetic analysis of Muscomorpha. Sci Rep. 2017;7:44300. pmid:28276531.
- 8. Skevington JH, Yeates DK. Phylogeny of the syrphoidea (Diptera) inferred from mtDNA sequences and morphology with particular reference to classification of the pipunculidae (Diptera). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2000;16(2):212–24. pmid:10942608.
- 9. Ståhls G, Hippa H, Rotheray G, Muona J, Gilbert F. Phylogeny of Syrphidae (Diptera) inferred from combined analysis of molecular and morphological characters. Systematic Entomology. 2003;28:433–50.
- 10. Ramakodi MP, Singh B, Wells JD, Guerrero F, Ray DA. A 454 sequencing approach to dipteran mitochondrial genome research. Genomics. 2015;105(1):53–60. pmid:25451744.
- 11. Kutty SN, Pape T, Wiegmann BM, Meier R. Molecular phylogeny of the Calyptratae (Diptera: Cyclorrhapha) with an emphasis on the superfamily Oestroidea and the position of Mystacinobiidae and McAlpine’s fly. Systematic Entomology. 2010;35(4):614–35.
- 12. Sonet G, De Smet Y, Tang M, Virgilio M, Young AD, Skevington JH. First mitochondrial genomes of five hoverfly species of the genus Eristalinus (Diptera: Syrphidae). Genome. 2019;62:677–87. pmid:31283887.
- 13. Yan J, Feng S, Song P, Li Y, Li W, Liu D, et al. Characterization and phylogenetic analysis of the complete mitochondrial genome of Eristalia cerealis (Diptera: Syrphidae). Mitochondrial DNA part B. 2020;5(1):1005–6. pmid:33366848.
- 14. Li X, Ding S, Li X, Hou P, Tang C, Yang D. The complete mitochondrial genome analysis of Eristalis tenax (Diptera, Syrphidae). Mitochondrial DNA part B. 2017;2(2):654–5. pmid:33490470.
- 15. Le Z, Gang L. The first complete mitochondrial genome of the tribe Rhingiini (Diptera:Syrphidae) and phylogenetic analysis. Mitochondrial DNA part B. 2020;5(3):3507–9.
- 16. Li H, Li J. The complete mitochondrial genome of Helophilus virgatus (Diptera: Syrphidae: Eristalinae) with a phylogenetic analysis of Syrphidae. Mitochondrial DNA part B. 2019;4(2):3106–7. pmid:33365873.
- 17. Chen Q, Niu X, Fang Z, Weng Q. The complete mitochondrial genome of Melanostoma orientale (Diptera: Syrphidae). Mitochondrial DNA part B. 2020;5(1):554–5. pmid:33366643.
- 18. Liu DX, Wang JL, Song PF, Li Y, Xie JX, Yan JY. Characterization of the complete mitochondrial genome of Melanostoma scalare (Diptera: Syrphidae). Mitochondrial DNA part B. 2020;5(2):1753–4.
- 19. Junqueira AC, Azeredo-Espin AM, Paulo DF, Marinho MA, Tomsho LP, Drautz-Moses DI, et al. Large-scale mitogenomics enables insights into Schizophora (Diptera) radiation and population diversity. Sci Rep. 2016;6:21762. pmid:26912394.
- 20. Li J, Li H. The first complete mitochondrial genome of genus Phytomia (Diptera: Syrphidae). Mitochondrial DNA part B. 2020;5(3):2512–3. pmid:33457845.
- 21. Yan Y, Hu L. The complete mitochondrial genome of Platycheirus albimanus (Diptera: Syrphidae: Syrphinae) and phylogenetic analysis of the Syrphidae. Mitochondrial DNA part B. 2021;6(2):528–30. pmid:33628915.
- 22. Cameron SL, Lambkin CL, Barker SC, Whiting MF. A mitochondrial genome phylogeny of Diptera: whole genome sequence data accurately resolve relationships over broad timescales with high precision. Systematic Entomology. 2007;32(1):40–59.
- 23. Yan Y, Cheng MD, Cao CQ, Li H. Structural analysis of complete mitochondrial genome of Syrphus torvus (Osten-Sacken) of a flower-visiting insect. Journal of Environmental Entomology. 2021; 43:992–1002.
- 24. Liu DX, Song PF, Yan JY, Wang JL, Xie JX. Characterization of the complete mitochondrial genome of Syrphus vitripennis (Diptera: Syrphidae). Mitochondrial DNA part B. 2020;5(2):1939–40.
- 25. Zhong M, Wang X, Liu Q, Luo B, Wu C, Wen J. The complete mitochondrial genome of the scuttle fly, Megaselia scalaris (Diptera: Phoridae). Mitochondrial DNA A DNA Mapp Seq Anal. 2016;27(1):182–4. pmid:24491096.
- 26. Li XY, Yan LP, Pape T, Gao YY, Zhang D. Evolutionary insights into bot flies (Insecta: Diptera: Oestridae) from comparative analysis of the mitochondrial genomes. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020;149:371–80. pmid:31991213.
- 27. Zhao Z, Su TJ, Chesters D, Wang SD, Ho SY, Zhu CD, et al. The mitochondrial genome of Elodia flavipalpis Aldrich (Diptera: Tachinidae) and the evolutionary timescale of Tachinid flies. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e61814. pmid:23626734.
- 28. Pei W, Yan L, Yang N, Zhang C, Zheng C, Yang J, et al. First report of mitogenome of Subclytia rotundiventris (Diptera, Tachinidae) yielded by next-generation sequencing. Mitochondrial DNA part B. 2019;4(2):2910–1. pmid:33365787.
- 29. Stevens JR, West H., and Wall R. Mitochondrial genomes of the sheep blowfly, Lucilia sericata, and the secondary blowfly, Chrysomya megacephala. Med Vet Entomol. 2008;22:89–91. pmid:18380659.
- 30. Karagozlu MZ, Park SH, Shin SE, Kim CB. Characterization of the complete mitochondrial genome of Triceratopyga calliphoroides (Rohdendorf, 1931) (Insecta: Diptera: Calliphoridae). Mitochondrial DNA part B. 2019;4(2):2183–4. pmid:33365465.
- 31. Nelson LA, Cameron SL, Yeates DK. The complete mitochondrial genome of the flesh fly, Sarcophaga impatiens Walker (Diptera: Sarcophagidae). Mitochondrial DNA. 2012;23(1):42–3. pmid:22292894.
- 32. Faccin S, Carmo AOd, Thyssen PJ, Dias D, Rebelo MT, Kalapothakis E. Complete mitochondrial genomes from three species of the genus Peckia (Sarcophagidae) with forensic entomology interest. Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2019;4(1):220–1.
- 33. Agudelo ID, Almanza K, Guadalupe AMM, Andrade P, Anguiano E, Ayala S, et al. The complete mitochondrial genome of the kelp fly Fucellia costalis (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) from Pacific Grove, California. Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2019;4(1):162–3.
- 34. Li X, Wang Y, Su S, Yang D. The complete mitochondrial genomes of Musca domestica and Scathophaga stercoraria (Diptera: Muscoidea: Muscidae and Scathophagidae). Mitochondrial DNA A DNA Mapp Seq Anal. 2016;27(2):1435–6. pmid:25163032.
- 35. Li X, Ding S, Cameron SL, Kang Z, Wang Y, Yang D. The first mitochondrial genome of the sepsid fly Nemopoda mamaevi Ozerov, 1997 (Diptera: Sciomyzoidea: Sepsidae), with mitochondrial genome phylogeny of cyclorrhapha. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0123594. pmid:25826648.
- 36. Yang Q, Li X, Li Z, Pan Z, Yang D. The mitochondrial genome analysis of Trypetoptera punctulata (Diptera: Sciomyzidae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2018;4(1):97–8.
- 37. Li X, Li W, Ding S, Cameron SL, Mao M, Shi L, et al. Mitochondrial Genomes Provide Insights into the Phylogeny of Lauxanioidea (Diptera: Cyclorrhapha). Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(4). pmid:28420076.
- 38. Yong HS, Song SL, Lim PE, Eamsobhana P, Suana IW. Complete Mitochondrial Genome of Three Bactrocera Fruit Flies of Subgenus Bactrocera (Diptera: Tephritidae) and Their Phylogenetic Implications. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148201. pmid:26840430.
- 39. Su Y, Zhang Y, Feng S, He J, Zhao Z, Bai Z, et al. The mitochondrial genome of the wolfberry fruit fly, Neoceratitis asiatica (Becker) (Diptera: Tephritidae) and the phylogeny of Neoceratitis Hendel genus. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):16612. pmid:29192255.
- 40. Moreyra NN, Mensch J, Hurtado J, Almeida F, Laprida C, Hasson E. What does mitogenomics tell us about the evolutionary history of the Drosophila buzzatii cluster (repleta group)? PLoS One. 2019;14:e0220676. pmid:31697700.
- 41. Yang F, Du YZ, Wang LP, Cao JM, Yu WW. The complete mitochondrial genome of the leafminer Liriomyza sativae (Diptera: Agromyzidae): great difference in the A+T-rich region compared to Liriomyza trifolii. Gene. 2011;485(1):7–15. pmid:21703334.
- 42. Wang S, Lei Z, Wang H, Dong B, Ren B. The complete mitochondrial genome of the leafminer Liriomyza trifolii (Diptera: Agromyzidae). Mol Biol Rep. 2011;38(2):687–92. pmid:20376704.
- 43. Nelson LA, Cameron SL, Yeates DK. The complete mitochondrial genome of the gall-forming fly, Fergusonina taylori Nelson and Yeates (Diptera: Fergusoninidae). Mitochondrial DNA. 2011;22(5–6):197–9. pmid:22165837.
- 44. Liu ZQ, Kuermanali N, Li Z, Chen SJ, Wang YZ, Tao H, et al. The complete mitochondrial genome of the parasitic sheep ked Melophagus ovinus (Diptera: Hippoboscidae). Mitochondrial DNA part B. 2017;2(2):432–4. pmid:33473852.
- 45. Fu YT, Zhang Y, Xun Y, Liu GH, Suleman, Zhao Y. Characterization of the complete mitochondrial genomes of six horseflies (Diptera: Tabanidae). Infect Genet Evol. 2021;95:105054. pmid:34461311.
- 46. Wang K, Li X, Ding S, Wang N, Mao M, Wang M, et al. The complete mitochondrial genome of the Atylotus miser (Diptera: Tabanomorpha: Tabanidae), with mitochondrial genome phylogeny of lower Brachycera (Orthorrhapha). Gene. 2016;586(1):184–196. pmid:27063560.
- 47. Liu Y, Wang J, Yang D. The mitochondrial genome of Desmomyia sinensis (Diptera: Rhagionidae). Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2021;6(7):1837–9. pmid:34124361.
- 48. Young AD, Lemmon AR, Skevington JH, Mengual X, Stahls G, Reemer M, et al. Anchored enrichment dataset for true flies (order Diptera) reveals insights into the phylogeny of flower flies (family Syrphidae). BMC Evol Biol. 2016;16(1):143. pmid:27357120.
- 49. Pérez-Bañón C, Rojo S, Ståhls G, Marcos-García MA. Taxonomy of European Eristalinus (Diptera: Syrphidae) based on larval morphology and molecular data. European Journal of Entomology. 2003;100(3):417–28.
- 50. Ssymank A, Kearns CA, Pape T, Thompson FC. Pollinating Flies (Diptera): A major contribution to plant diversity and agricultural production. Biodiversity. 2008;9:86–9.
- 51. Mengual X, Ståhls G, Rojo S. Phylogenetic relationships and taxonomic ranking of pipizine flower flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) with implications for the evolution of aphidophagy. Cladistics. 2015;31:491–508. pmid:34753266.
- 52. Reemer M, Rotheray GE. Pollen feeding larvae in the presumed predatory syrphine genus Toxomerus Macquart (Diptera, Syrphidae). Journal of Natural History. 2009;43(15–16):939–49.
- 53.
Huo K, Ren G, Zheng Z. Fauna of Syrphidae from Mt. Qinling–Bashan in China (Insecta: Diptera). China Agricultural Science and Technology Press; 2007.
- 54. Rotheray G, Gilbert F. Phylogeny of Palaearctic Syrphidae (Diptera): Evidence from larval stages. Zool J Linn Soc. 1999;127:1–112.
- 55. Tamaki G, Landis BJ, Weeks RE. Autumn Populations of Green Peach Aphid on Peach Trees and the Role of Syrphid Flies in Their Control. J Econ Entomol. 1967;60:433–6.
- 56. Sundby RA. A comparative study of the efficiency of three predatory insects Coccinella septempunctata L. [Coleoptera, coccinellidae] Chrysopa carnea ST. [Neuroptera, Chrysopidae] and Syrphus ribesii L. [Diptera, Syrphidae] at two different temperatures. Entomophaga. 1966;11:395–404.
- 57.
Huang H, Cheng X. Fauna Sinica, Insecta, Vol 50: Diptera: Syrphidae. Science Press; 2012.
- 58. Mengual X. Phylogenetic relationships of the bacchine flower flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) based on molecular characters, with a description of a new species of Melanostoma (Schiner, 1860). Contributions to Zoology. 2020;89(2):210–44.
- 59. Clary DO, Wolstenholme DR. The mitochondrial DNA molecular of Drosophila yakuba: nucleotide sequence, gene organization, and genetic code. J Mol Evol. 1985;22:252–71. pmid:3001325.
- 60. Cameron SL. Insect mitochondrial genomics: implications for evolution and phylogeny. Annu Rev Entomol. 2014;59:95–117. Epub 2013/10/29. pmid:24160435.
- 61. Simon C, Frati F, Beckenbach A, Crespi B, Liu H, Flook P. Evolution, Weighting, and Phylogenetic Utility of Mitochondrial Gene Sequences and a Compilation of Conserved Polymerase Chain Reaction Primers. Ann Entomol Soc Am 1994;87:651–701.
- 62. Curole JP, Kocher TD. Mitogenomics: digging deeper with complete mitochondrial genomes. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999;14:394–8. pmid:10481201.
- 63. Wilson AC, Cann RL, Carr SM, George M, Gyllensten UB, Helm-bychowski KM, et al. Mitochondrial DNA and two perspectives on evolutionary genetics. Biol J Linn Soc. 1985;26:375–400.
- 64. Kearse M, Moir R, Wilson A, Stones-Havas S, Cheung M, Sturrock S, et al. Geneious Basic: an integrated and extendable desktop software platform for the organization and analysis of sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(12):1647–9. pmid:22543367.
- 65. Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 7.0 for Bigger Datasets. Mol Biol Evol. 2016;33(7):1870–4. pmid:27004904.
- 66. Schattner P, Brooks AN, Lowe TM. The tRNAscan-SE, snoscan and snoGPS web servers for the detection of tRNAs and snoRNAs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33:W686–9. pmid:15980563.
- 67. Laslett D, Canback B. ARAGORN, a program to detect tRNA genes and tmRNA genes in nucleotide sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32(1):11–6. pmid:14704338.
- 68. Wang J, Li H, Dai R. Complete mitochondrial genome of Taharana fasciana (Insecta, Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) and comparison with other Cicadellidae insects. Genetica. 2017;145(6):593–602. pmid:28913775.
- 69. Cameron SL, Whiting MF. The complete mitochondrial genome of the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta, (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Sphingidae), and an examination of mitochondrial gene variability within butterflies and moths. Gene. 2008;408(1–2):112–23. pmid:18065166.
- 70. Gillespie JJ, Johnston JS, Cannone JJ, Gutell RR. Characteristics of the nuclear (18S, 5.8S, 28S and 5S) and mitochondrial (12S and 16S) rRNA genes of Apis mellifera (Insecta: Hymenoptera): structure, organization, and retrotransposable elements. Insect Mol Biol. 2006;15:657–86. pmid:17069639.
- 71. He B, Su T, Niu Z, Zhou Z, Gu Z, Huang D. Characterization of mitochondrial genomes of three Andrena bees (Apoidea: Andrenidae) and insights into the phylogenetics. Int J Biol Macromol. 2019;127:118–25. pmid:30639593.
- 72. Wang Y, Cao JJ, Li N, Ma GY, Li WH. The first mitochondrial genome from Scopuridae (Insecta: Plecoptera) reveals structural features and phylogenetic implications. Int J Biol Macromol. 2019;122:893–902. pmid:30412754.
- 73. Mathews DH, Disney MD, Childs JL, Schroeder SJ, Zuker M, Turner DH. Incorporating chemical modification constraints into a dynamic programming algorithm for prediction of RNA secondary structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2004;101:7287–92. pmid:15123812.
- 74. Wei SJ, Shi M, Chen XX, Sharkey MJ, van Achterberg C, Ye GY, et al. New views on strand asymmetry in insect mitochondrial genomes. PLoS One. 2010;5(9):e12708. pmid:20856815.
- 75. Hassanin A, Ropiquet A, Couloux A, Cruaud C. Evolution of the mitochondrial genome in mammals living at high altitude: new insights from a study of the tribe Caprini (Bovidae, Antilopinae). J Mol Evol. 2009;68(4):293–310. pmid:19294454.
- 76. Reuter JS, Mathews DH. RNAstructure: software for RNA secondary structure prediction and analysis. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:129. pmid:20230624.
- 77. Perna NT, Kocher TD. Patterns of nucleotide composition at fourfold degenerate sites of animal mitochondrial genomes. J Mol Evol. 1995;(41):353–8. pmid:7563121.
- 78. Blouin MS, Yowell CA, Courtney CH, Dame JB. Substitution Bias, Rapid Saturation, and the Use of mtDNA for Nematode Systematics. Mol Biol Evol. 1998;15:1719–27. pmid:9866206.
- 79. Breinholt JW, Kawahara AY. Phylotranscriptomics: saturated third codon positions radically influence the estimation of trees based on next-gen data. Genome Biol Evol. 2013;5(11):2082–92. pmid:24148944.
- 80. Zhang D, Gao F, Jakovlic I, Zou H, Zhang J, Li WX, et al. Phylosuite: An integrated and scalable desktop platform for streamlined molecular sequence data management and evolutionary phylogenetics studies. Mol Ecol Resour. 2020;20(1):348–55. pmid:31599058.
- 81. Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(4):772–80. pmid:23329690.
- 82. Talavera G, Castresana J. Improvement of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequence alignments. Syst Biol. 2007;56(4):564–77. pmid:17654362.
- 83. Kück P, Meid SA, Groß C, Wägele JW, Misof B. AliGROOVE—visualization of heterogeneous sequence divergence within multiple sequence alignments and detection of inflated branch support. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15:294. pmid:25176556.
- 84. Lanfear R, Frandsen PB, Wright AM, Senfeld T, Calcott B. PartitionFinder 2: New Methods for Selecting Partitioned Models of Evolution for Molecular and Morphological Phylogenetic Analyses. Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34(3):772–3. pmid:28013191.
- 85. Trifinopoulos J, Nguyen LT, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. W-IQ-TREE: a fast online phylogenetic tool for maximum likelihood analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(W1):W232–5. pmid:27084950.
- 86. Liu Y, Song F, Jiang P, Wilson JJ, Cai W, Li H. Compositional heterogeneity in true bug mitochondrial phylogenomics. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2018;118:135–44. pmid:28986237.
- 87. Morgan CC, Foster PG, Webb AE, Pisani D, McInerney JO, O’Connell MJ. Heterogeneous models place the root of the placental mammal phylogeny. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30(9):2145–56. pmid:23813979.
- 88. Wang X, Wang J, Dai R. Structural features of the mitogenome of the leafhopper genus Cladolidia (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae: Coelidiinae) and phylogenetic implications in Cicadellidae. Ecol Evol. 2021;11(18):12554–66. pmid:34594520.
- 89. Xu SY, Long JK, Chen XS. Comparative analysis of the complete mitochondrial genomes of five Achilidae species (Hemiptera: Fulgoroidea) and other Fulgoroidea reveals conserved mitochondrial genome organization. PeerJ. 2019;7:e6659. pmid:30941275.
- 90. Hall WA, Sherr GT. Convection–enhanced delivery of targeted toxins for malignant glioma. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2006;3:371–7. pmid:16640497.
- 91. Cheng KC, Cahill DS, Kasai H, Nishimura S, Loeb LA. 8-Hydroxyguanine, an abundant form of oxidative DNA damage, causes G-T and A-C substitutions. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1992;267(1):166–72. pmid:1730583.