Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33767214›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Plastid phylogenomics resolves ambiguous relationships within the orchid family and provides a solid timeframe for biogeography and macroevolution.

Maria Alejandra Serna-Sánchez, Oscar A Pérez-Escobar, Diego Bogarín, María Fernanda Torres-Jimenez, Astrid Catalina Alvarez-Yela, Juliana E Arcila-Galvis, Climbie F Hall, Fábio de Barros, Fábio Pinheiro, Steven Dodsworth and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Orchid genome evolution and trait innovation.Journal of integrative plant biology · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The multichromosomal structure evolution ofFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Unveiling a Meaningful Form ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Evolution ofFrontiers in plant science · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Maria Alejandra Serna-Sánchez *Laboratorio de Biología Comparativa, Corporación Para Investigaciones Biológicas (CIB), Cra. 72 A No. 78 B 141, Medellín, Colombia.
Oscar A Pérez-Escobar *Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, London, TW9 3AE, UK. o.perez-escobar@kew.org.
Diego Bogarín *Jardín Botánico Lankester, Universidad de Costa Rica, P. O. Box 302-7050, Cartago, Costa Rica.
María Fernanda Torres-JimenezGothenburg Global Biodiversity Centre, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Astrid Catalina Alvarez-YelaCentro de Bioinformática y Biología Computacional (BIOS), Ecoparque Los Yarumos Edificio BIOS, Manizales, Colombia.
Juliana E Arcila-GalvisLaboratorio de Biología Comparativa, Corporación Para Investigaciones Biológicas (CIB), Cra. 72 A No. 78 B 141, Medellín, Colombia.
Climbie F HallInstituto de Botânica, Núcleo de Pesquisa Orquídario Do Estado, Postal 68041, São Paulo, SP, 04045-972, Brasil.
Fábio de BarrosInstituto de Botânica, Núcleo de Pesquisa Orquídario Do Estado, Postal 68041, São Paulo, SP, 04045-972, Brasil.
Fábio PinheiroInstituto de Biologia, Departamento de Biologia Vegetal, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, 13083-862, Brazil.
Steven DodsworthSchool of Life Sciences, University of Bedfordshire, University Square, Luton, LU1 3JU, UK.
Mark W ChaseRoyal Botanic Gardens Kew, London, TW9 3AE, UK.
Alexandre AntonelliRoyal Botanic Gardens Kew, London, TW9 3AE, UK.
Tatiana AriasLaboratorio de Biología Comparativa, Corporación Para Investigaciones Biológicas (CIB), Cra. 72 A No. 78 B 141, Medellín, Colombia. tatiana.arias48@tdea.edu.co.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent phylogenomic analyses based on the maternally inherited plastid organelle have enlightened evolutionary relationships between the subfamilies of Orchidaceae and most of the tribes. However, uncertainty remains within several subtribes and genera for which phylogenetic relationships have not ever been tested in a phylogenomic context. To address these knowledge-gaps, we here provide the most extensively sampled analysis of the orchid family to date, based on 78 plastid coding genes representing 264 species, 117 genera, 18 tribes and 28 subtribes. Divergence times are also provided as inferred from strict and relaxed molecular clocks and birth-death tree models. Our taxon sampling includes 51 newly sequenced plastid genomes produced by a genome skimming approach. We focus our sampling efforts on previously unplaced clades within tribes Cymbidieae and Epidendreae. Our results confirmed phylogenetic relationships in Orchidaceae as recovered in previous studies, most of which were recovered with maximum support (209 of the 262 tree branches). We provide for the first time a clear phylogenetic placement for Codonorchideae within subfamily Orchidoideae, and Podochilieae and Collabieae within subfamily Epidendroideae. We also identify relationships that have been persistently problematic across multiple studies, regardless of the different details of sampling and genomic datasets used for phylogenetic reconstructions. Our study provides an expanded, robust temporal phylogenomic framework of the Orchidaceae that paves the way for biogeographical and macroevolutionary studies.

Indexed as

BiodiversityEvolution, MolecularGenome, PlastidPhylogenyOrchidaceaePlastids

Identifiers

PMID33767214
PMCPMC7994851

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.