Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27436133›Full record

ArticleNature communications2016

Reciprocal genomic evolution in the ant-fungus agricultural symbiosis.

Sanne Nygaard, Haofu Hu, Cai Li, Morten Schiøtt, Zhensheng Chen, Zhikai Yang, Qiaolin Xie, Chunyu Ma, Yuan Deng, Rebecca B Dikow and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

69 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Dietary potential of the symbiotic fungusApplied and environmental microbiology · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

17 authors.

Sanne NygaardCentre for Social Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Haofu HuChina National Genbank, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518083, China.
Cai LiChina National Genbank, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518083, China.
Morten SchiøttCentre for Social Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Zhensheng ChenChina National Genbank, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518083, China.
Zhikai YangChina National Genbank, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518083, China.
Qiaolin XieChina National Genbank, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518083, China.
Chunyu MaChina National Genbank, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518083, China.
Yuan DengChina National Genbank, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518083, China.
Rebecca B DikowSmithsonian Institute for Biodiversity Genomics, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC 20013-7012, USA.
Christian RabelingDepartment of Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA.
David R NashCentre for Social Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0462-6794
William T WcisloSmithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Ancón 03092, Panama.
Seán G BradyDepartment of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA.
Ted R SchultzDepartment of Entomology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20013-7012, USA.
Guojie ZhangCentre for Social Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jacobus J BoomsmaCentre for Social Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

European Research Council 323085
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The attine ant-fungus agricultural symbiosis evolved over tens of millions of years, producing complex societies with industrial-scale farming analogous to that of humans. Here we document reciprocal shifts in the genomes and transcriptomes of seven fungus-farming ant species and their fungal cultivars. We show that ant subsistence farming probably originated in the early Tertiary (55-60 MYA), followed by further transitions to the farming of fully domesticated cultivars and leaf-cutting, both arising earlier than previously estimated. Evolutionary modifications in the ants include unprecedented rates of genome-wide structural rearrangement, early loss of arginine biosynthesis and positive selection on chitinase pathways. Modifications of fungal cultivars include loss of a key ligninase domain, changes in chitin synthesis and a reduction in carbohydrate-degrading enzymes as the ants gradually transitioned to functional herbivory. In contrast to human farming, increasing dependence on a single cultivar lineage appears to have been essential to the origin of industrial-scale ant agriculture.

Indexed as

AgricultureEvolution, MolecularGenomeAnimalsAntsCalibrationCarbohydrate MetabolismChitinCrops, AgriculturalDomesticationFungiGenome, InsectGenome, PlantPhylogenySequence Analysis, DNASymbiosisChitin

Identifiers

PMID27436133
PMCPMC4961791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.