Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20177717›Full record

ArticleMycorrhiza2010

Phylogenies from genetic and morphological characters do not support a revision of Gigasporaceae (Glomeromycota) into four families and five genera.

Joseph B Morton, Zola Msiska

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Mycorrhiza, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joseph B MortonWest Virginia University, 1090 Agricultural Sciences Building, Morgantown, WV 26506-6108, USA. jbmorton@mail.wvu.edu
Zola Msiska
West Virginia University · USWest Virginia University Hospitals · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The family Gigasporaceae consisted of the two genera Gigaspora and Scutellospora when first erected. In a recent revision of this classification, Scutellospora was divided into three families and four genera based on two main lines of evidence: (1) phylogenetic patterns of coevolving small and large rRNA genes and (2) morphology of spore germination shields. The rRNA trees were assumed to accurately reflect species evolution, and shield characters were selected because they correlated with gene trees. These characters then were used selectively to support gene trees and validate the classification. To test this new classification, a phylogenetic tree was reconstructed from concatenated 25S rRNA and β-tubulin gene sequences using 35% of known species in Gigasporaceae. A tree also was reconstructed from 23 morphological characters represented in 71% of known species. Results from both datasets showed that the revised classification was untenable. The classification also failed to accurately represent sister group relationships amongst higher taxa. Only two clades were fully resolved and congruent among datasets: Gigaspora and Racocetra (a clade consisting of species with spores having one inner germinal wall). Other clades were unresolved, which was attributed in part to undersampling of species. Topology of the morphology-based phylogeny was incongruent with gene evolution. Five shield characters were reduced to three, of which two were phylogenetically uninformative because they were homoplastic. Therefore, most taxa erected in the new classification are rejected. The classification is revised to restore the family Gigasporaceae, within which are the three genera Gigaspora, Racocetra, and Scutellospora. This classification does not reflect strict topology of either gene or morphological evolution. Further revisions must await sampling of additional characters and taxa to better ascertain congruence between datasets and infer a more accurate phylogeny of this important group of fungi.

Indexed as

PhylogenyCluster AnalysisDNA, FungalDNA, RibosomalFungal ProteinsGenes, rRNAGlomeromycotaMycorrhizaeRNA, FungalRNA, RibosomalSequence Analysis, DNATubulinDNA, FungalDNA, RibosomalFungal ProteinsRNA, FungalRNA, RibosomalRNA, ribosomal, 25STubulin

Identifiers

PMID20177717
OpenAlexW2025355591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.