Evolutionary relationships in some cetrarioid genera (lichenized Ascomycota)

http://www.ester.ee/record=b1053420~S58*es

The Estonian eFlora

The Estonian eFlora is an example of the new e-learning tools prepared by the KeyToNature consortium. It is an interactive digital identification key for more than 1000 plant species recorded from Estonia. The tool is freely available on the internet - in Estonian and English - and has two interfaces (dichotomous and multi-entry), which allow the identification of species using different approaches. Another tool developed by KeyToNature, the OpenKeyEditor, allows users not only to edit the text of the existing master key, but also to produce mini-keys restricted to smaller subsets of taxa (e.g. the plants of a park, or a scool garden), and to add user-generated content to them. The reaction to these tools from public media and educational circles has been very positive

Keys to plants and lichens on smartphones: Estonian examples

The EU project KeyToNature aims to contribute to a better knowledge of biodiversity by a practical activity, the identification of species. The project is introducing new tools, including digital keys for mobile media. In Estonia two applications have been prepared for smartphones: a ‘Key to trees and shrubs of Estonia’ (for iPhone, iPodTouch and iPad) and a ‘Key to Estonian epiphytic macrolichens’ (using the Android operating system). A third tool, the ‘Key for plants of the island Naissaar’ is an example of application of the Open Key Editor for creating new keys for mobile devices, starting from a larger master key

Taxonomic novelties published in Folia Cryptogamica Estonica, fascicles 1–50

Newly described taxa or new combinations, altogether 237 taxonomic novelties which have been published in Folia Cryptogamica Estonica (FCE), fascicles 1–50 (1972–2013), are listed in alphabetical order, together with their publication data.

New assessment of Least Concern lichens in the Red List of Estonia: are common species still common?

The threat status of 161 lichenized species that were considered common in Estonia was assessed in 2021. For most of these species, it was the second Red List assessment using the IUCN system (the first such evaluation was performed in 2008). The main data sources for species occurrence were the records reported in 100 study sites located throughout the country during 2020, and the PlutoF biodiversity database. 125 species remained, according to the new assessment, in the category Least Concern (LC) and their populations are not under threat in Estonia at present. Two species were placed in the category Not Applicable (NA) because of systematic revisions while 33 species were assigned to the categories Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU) or Near Threatened (NT); one further species received the status Data Deficient (DD). Thus, the threat status has changed for 22% of the studied species that had generally been considered common in Estonia. The reasons for this change are variable but there is clear evidence that 26 species have become more threatened during last 12 years

Phylogeny of the cetrarioid core (Parmeliaceae) based on five genetic markers

Fourteen genera belong to a monophyletic core of cetrarioid lichens, Ahtiana, Allocetraria, Arctocetraria, Cetraria, Cetrariella, Cetreliopsis, Flavocetraria, Kaernefeltia, Masonhalea, Nephromopsis, Tuckermanella, Tuckermannopsis, Usnocetraria and Vulpicida. A total of 71 samples representing 65 species (of 90 worldwide) and all type species of the genera are included in phylogentic analyses based on a complete ITS matrix and incomplete sets of group I intron, -tubulin, GAPDH and mtSSU sequences. Eleven of the species included in the study are analysed phylogenetically for the first time, and of the 178 sequences, 67 are newly constructed. Two phylogenetic trees, one based solely on the complete ITS-matrix and a second based on total information, are similar, but not entirely identical. About half of the species are gathered in a strongly supported clade composed of the genera Allocetraria, Cetraria s. str., Cetrariella and Vulpicida. Arctocetraria, Cetreliopsis, Kaernefeltia and Tuckermanella are monophyletic genera, whereas Cetraria, Flavocetraria and Tuckermannopsis are polyphyletic. The taxonomy in current use is compared with the phylogenetic results, and future, probable or potential adjustments to the phylogeny are discussed. The single non-DNA character with a strong correlation to phylogeny based on DNA-sequences is conidial shape. The secondary chemistry of the poorly known species Cetraria annae is analyzed for the first time; the cortex contains usnic acid and atranorin, whereas isonephrosterinic, nephrosterinic, lichesterinic, protolichesterinic and squamatic acids occur in the medulla. Notes on the anatomy of Cetraria annae and Flavocetraria minuscula are also provided

Genes reveal traces of common recent demographic history for most of the Uralic-speaking populations

Background: The genetic origins of Uralic speakers from across a vast territory in the temperate zone of North Eurasia have remained elusive. Previous studies have shown contrasting proportions of Eastern and Western Eurasian ancestry in their mitochondrial and Y chromosomal gene pools. While the maternal lineages reflect by and large the geographic background of a given Uralic-speaking population, the frequency of Y chromosomes of Eastern Eurasian origin is distinctively high among European Uralic speakers. The autosomal variation of Uralic speakers, however, has not yet been studied comprehensively.Results: Here, we present a genome-wide analysis of 15 Uralic-speaking populations which cover all main groups of the linguistic family. We show that contemporary Uralic speakers are genetically very similar to their local geographical neighbours. However, when studying relationships among geographically distant populations, we find that most of the Uralic speakers and some of their neighbours share a genetic component of possibly Siberian origin. Additionally, we show that most Uralic speakers share significantly more genomic segments identity-by-descent with each other than with geographically equidistant speakers of other languages. We find that correlated genome-wide genetic and lexical distances among Uralic speakers suggest co-dispersion of genes and languages. Yet, we do not find long-range genetic ties between Estonians and Hungarians with their linguistic sisters that would distinguish them from their non-Uralic-speaking neighbours.Conclusions: We show that most Uralic speakers share a distinct ancestry component of likely Siberian origin, which suggests that the spread of Uralic languages involved at least some demic component

Genes reveal traces of common recent demographic history for most of the Uralic-speaking populations.

BACKGROUND: The genetic origins of Uralic speakers from across a vast territory in the temperate zone of North Eurasia have remained elusive. Previous studies have shown contrasting proportions of Eastern and Western Eurasian ancestry in their mitochondrial and Y chromosomal gene pools. While the maternal lineages reflect by and large the geographic background of a given Uralic-speaking population, the frequency of Y chromosomes of Eastern Eurasian origin is distinctively high among European Uralic speakers. The autosomal variation of Uralic speakers, however, has not yet been studied comprehensively. RESULTS: Here, we present a genome-wide analysis of 15 Uralic-speaking populations which cover all main groups of the linguistic family. We show that contemporary Uralic speakers are genetically very similar to their local geographical neighbours. However, when studying relationships among geographically distant populations, we find that most of the Uralic speakers and some of their neighbours share a genetic component of possibly Siberian origin. Additionally, we show that most Uralic speakers share significantly more genomic segments identity-by-descent with each other than with geographically equidistant speakers of other languages. We find that correlated genome-wide genetic and lexical distances among Uralic speakers suggest co-dispersion of genes and languages. Yet, we do not find long-range genetic ties between Estonians and Hungarians with their linguistic sisters that would distinguish them from their non-Uralic-speaking neighbours. CONCLUSIONS: We show that most Uralic speakers share a distinct ancestry component of likely Siberian origin, which suggests that the spread of Uralic languages involved at least some demic component

Genomic analyses inform on migration events during the peopling of Eurasia.

High-coverage whole-genome sequence studies have so far focused on a limited number of geographically restricted populations, or been targeted at specific diseases, such as cancer. Nevertheless, the availability of high-resolution genomic data has led to the development of new methodologies for inferring population history and refuelled the debate on the mutation rate in humans. Here we present the Estonian Biocentre Human Genome Diversity Panel (EGDP), a dataset of 483 high-coverage human genomes from 148 populations worldwide, including 379 new genomes from 125 populations, which we group into diversity and selection sets. We analyse this dataset to refine estimates of continent-wide patterns of heterozygosity, long- and short-distance gene flow, archaic admixture, and changes in effective population size through time as well as for signals of positive or balancing selection. We find a genetic signature in present-day Papuans that suggests that at least 2% of their genome originates from an early and largely extinct expansion of anatomically modern humans (AMHs) out of Africa. Together with evidence from the western Asian fossil record, and admixture between AMHs and Neanderthals predating the main Eurasian expansion, our results contribute to the mounting evidence for the presence of AMHs out of Africa earlier than 75,000 years ago.Support was provided by: Estonian Research Infrastructure Roadmap grant no 3.2.0304.11-0312; Australian Research Council Discovery grants (DP110102635 and DP140101405) (D.M.L., M.W. and E.W.); Danish National Research Foundation; the Lundbeck Foundation and KU2016 (E.W.); ERC Starting Investigator grant (FP7 - 261213) (T.K.); Estonian Research Council grant PUT766 (G.C. and M.K.); EU European Regional Development Fund through the Centre of Excellence in Genomics to Estonian Biocentre (R.V.; M.Me. and A.Me.), and Centre of Excellence for Genomics and Translational Medicine Project No. 2014-2020.4.01.15-0012 to EGC of UT (A.Me.) and EBC (M.Me.); Estonian Institutional Research grant IUT24-1 (L.S., M.J., A.K., B.Y., K.T., C.B.M., Le.S., H.Sa., S.L., D.M.B., E.M., R.V., G.H., M.K., G.C., T.K. and M.Me.) and IUT20-60 (A.Me.); French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs and French ANR grant number ANR-14-CE31-0013-01 (F.-X.R.); Gates Cambridge Trust Funding (E.J.); ICG SB RAS (No. VI.58.1.1) (D.V.L.); Leverhulme Programme grant no. RP2011-R-045 (A.B.M., P.G. and M.G.T.); Ministry of Education and Science of Russia; Project 6.656.2014/K (S.A.F.); NEFREX grant funded by the European Union (People Marie Curie Actions; International Research Staff Exchange Scheme; call FP7-PEOPLE-2012-IRSES-number 318979) (M.Me., G.H. and M.K.); NIH grants 5DP1ES022577 05, 1R01DK104339-01, and 1R01GM113657-01 (S.Tis.); Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant N 14-06-00180a) (M.G.); Russian Foundation for Basic Research; grant 16-04-00890 (O.B. and E.B); Russian Science Foundation grant 14-14-00827 (O.B.); The Russian Foundation for Basic Research (14-04-00725-a), The Russian Humanitarian Scientific Foundation (13-11-02014) and the Program of the Basic Research of the RAS Presidium “Biological diversity” (E.K.K.); Wellcome Trust and Royal Society grant WT104125AIA & the Bristol Advanced Computing Research Centre (http://www.bris.ac.uk/acrc/) (D.J.L.); Wellcome Trust grant 098051 (Q.A.; C.T.-S. and Y.X.); Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship grant 100719/Z/12/Z (M.G.T.); Young Explorers Grant from the National Geographic Society (8900-11) (C.A.E.); ERC Consolidator Grant 647787 ‘LocalAdaptatio’ (A.Ma.); Program of the RAS Presidium “Basic research for the development of the Russian Arctic” (B.M.); Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant 16-06-00303 (E.B.); a Rutherford Fellowship (RDF-10-MAU-001) from the Royal Society of New Zealand (M.P.C.)