Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32016402›Full record

ArticleAnnals of botany2020

A transcriptome-based study on the phylogeny and evolution of the taxonomically controversial subfamily Apioideae (Apiaceae).

Jun Wen, Yan Yu, Deng-Feng Xie, Chang Peng, Qing Liu, Song-Dong Zhou, Xing-Jin He

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of botany, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Ecology and evolution · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Phylogeny and Taxonomic Revision of the GenusPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jun WenKey Laboratory of Bio-Resource and Eco-Environment of Ministry of Education, College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Yan YuKey Laboratory of Bio-Resource and Eco-Environment of Ministry of Education, College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Deng-Feng XieKey Laboratory of Bio-Resource and Eco-Environment of Ministry of Education, College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Chang PengKey Laboratory of Bio-Resource and Eco-Environment of Ministry of Education, College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Qing LiuKey Laboratory of Mountain Ecological Restoration and Bioresource Utilization, Chengdu Institute of Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Song-Dong ZhouKey Laboratory of Bio-Resource and Eco-Environment of Ministry of Education, College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Xing-Jin HeKey Laboratory of Bio-Resource and Eco-Environment of Ministry of Education, College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Sichuan University · CNChinese Academy of Sciences · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsA long-standing controversy in the subfamily Apioideae concerns relationships among the major lineages, which has prevented a comprehensive study of their fruits and evolutionary history. Here we use single copy genes (SCGs) generated from transcriptome datasets to generate a reliable species tree and explore the evolutionary history of Apioideae.

methodsIn total, 3351 SCGs were generated from 27 transcriptome datasets and one genome, and further used for phylogenetic analysis using coalescent-based methods. Fruit morphology and anatomy were studied in combination with the species tree. Eleven SCGs were screened out for dating analysis with two fossils selected for calibration. KEY

resultsA well-supported species tree was generated with a topology [Chamaesieae, (Bupleureae, (Pleurospermeae, (Physospermopsis Clade, (Group C, (Group A, Group B)))))] that differed from previous trees. Daucinae and Torilidinae were not in the tribe Scandiceae and existed as sister groups to the Acronema Clade. Five branches (I-V) of the species tree showed low quartet support but strong local posterior probabilities. Dating analysis suggested that Apioideae originated around 56.64 Mya (95 % highest posterior density interval, 45.18-73.53 Mya).

conclusionsThis study resolves a controversial phylogenetic relationship in Apioideae based on 3351 SCGs and coalescent-based species tree estimation methods. Gene trees that contributed to the species tree may undergoing rapid evolutionary divergence and incomplete lineage sorting. Fruits of Apioideae might have evolved in two directions, anemochorous and hydrochorous, with epizoochorous as a derived mode. Molecular and morphological evidence suggests that Daucinae and Torilidinae should be restored to the tribe level. Our results provide new insights into the morphological evolution of this subfamily, which may contribute to a better understanding of species diversification in Apioideae. Molecular dating analysis suggests that uplift of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau (QTP) and climate changes probably drove rapid speciation and diversification of Apioideae in the QTP region.

Indexed as

ApiaceaeTranscriptomeEvolution, MolecularFossilsPhylogenyApioideaecoalescent-based methodevolutionary historyfruitphylogenysingle copy genesspecies treetranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID32016402
PMCPMC7218814
OpenAlexW3004707440

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.