Choice of Molecular markers to carry out molecular phylogenetics

Choice of Molecular markers to carry out molecular phylogenetics

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

For evolutionary analysis of different individuals within a population, the preferable molecular markers are non-coding regions of mitochondrial DNA. My question is that why they are used what is the logic behind that and why specifically mitochondrial non-coding region is taken for evolutionary analysis between them?

The molecular markers need have an appropriate amount of divergence to resolve the phylogeny at the desired scale. If the markers are too conserved, there will not be enough characters differing between taxa. On the contrary, if the markers are too divergent, the sequences may be somewhat randomized, there may be misleading convergences between distant taxa…

Non-coding regions are usually less constrained than coding regions, so they can accumulate more mutations. This makes them more suitable for studies at small evolutionary scale.

Watch the video: RFLP marker (February 2023).