Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34718377›Full record

ReviewAnnals of botany2022

The Waiting Room Hypothesis revisited by orchids: were orchid mycorrhizal fungi recruited among root endophytes?

Marc-André Selosse, Rémi Petrolli, María Isabel Mujica, Liam Laurent, Benoît Perez-Lamarque, Tomáš Figura, Amelia Bourceret, Hans Jacquemyn, Taiqiang Li, Jiangyun Gao and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of botany, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
27.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Orchid genome evolution and trait innovation.Journal of integrative plant biology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Deciphering Molecular Pathways ofMicroorganisms · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 6 countries.

Marc-André SelosseInstitut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité (UMR 7205 - CNRS, MNHN, UPMC, EPHE), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Universités, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3471-9067
Rémi PetrolliInstitut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité (UMR 7205 - CNRS, MNHN, UPMC, EPHE), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Universités, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8079-6130
María Isabel MujicaInstitut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité (UMR 7205 - CNRS, MNHN, UPMC, EPHE), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Universités, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-0826-6455
Liam LaurentInstitut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité (UMR 7205 - CNRS, MNHN, UPMC, EPHE), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Universités, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France.
Benoît Perez-LamarqueInstitut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité (UMR 7205 - CNRS, MNHN, UPMC, EPHE), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Universités, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France.
Tomáš FiguraInstitut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité (UMR 7205 - CNRS, MNHN, UPMC, EPHE), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Universités, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5714-7810
Amelia BourceretInstitut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité (UMR 7205 - CNRS, MNHN, UPMC, EPHE), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Universités, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France.
Hans JacquemynDepartment of Biology, Plant Conservation and Population Biology, Department of Biology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Taiqiang LiYunnan Key Laboratory of Plant Reproductive Adaptation and Evolutionary Ecology, Yunnan University, Kunming, China.
Jiangyun GaoYunnan Key Laboratory of Plant Reproductive Adaptation and Evolutionary Ecology, Yunnan University, Kunming, China.
Julita MinasiewiczDepartment of Plant Taxonomy and Nature Conservation, University of Gdańsk, Wita Stwosza 59, 80-308, Gdańsk, Poland.
Florent MartosInstitut de Systématique, Évolution, Biodiversité (UMR 7205 - CNRS, MNHN, UPMC, EPHE), Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Sorbonne Universités, 57 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRYunnan University · CNKU Leuven · BEUniversity of Gdańsk · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs in most land plants, the roots of orchids (Orchidaceae) associate with soil fungi. Recent studies have highlighted the diversity of the fungal partners involved, mostly within Basidiomycotas. The association with a polyphyletic group of fungi collectively called rhizoctonias (Ceratobasidiaceae, Tulasnellaceae and Serendipitaceae) is the most frequent. Yet, several orchid species target other fungal taxa that differ from rhizoctonias by their phylogenetic position and/or ecological traits related to their nutrition out of the orchid roots (e.g. soil saprobic or ectomycorrhizal fungi). We offer an evolutionary framework for these symbiotic associations. SCOPE: Our view is based on the 'Waiting Room Hypothesis', an evolutionary scenario stating that mycorrhizal fungi of land flora were recruited from ancestors that initially colonized roots as endophytes. Endophytes biotrophically colonize tissues in a diffuse way, contrasting with mycorrhizae by the absence of morphological differentiation and of contribution to the plant's nutrition. The association with rhizoctonias is probably the ancestral symbiosis that persists in most extant orchids, while during orchid evolution numerous secondary transitions occurred to other fungal taxa. We suggest that both the rhizoctonia partners and the secondarily acquired ones are from fungal taxa that have broad endophytic ability, as exemplified in non-orchid roots. We review evidence that endophytism in non-orchid plants is the current ecology of many rhizoctonias, which suggests that their ancestors may have been endophytic in orchid ancestors. This also applies to the non-rhizoctonia fungi that were secondarily recruited by several orchid lineages as mycorrhizal partners. Indeed, from our review of the published literature, they are often detected, probably as endophytes, in extant rhizoctonia-associated orchids.

conclusionThe orchid family offers one of the best documented examples of the 'Waiting Room Hypothesis': their mycorrhizal symbioses support the idea that extant mycorrhizal fungi have been recruited among endophytic fungi that colonized orchid ancestors.

Indexed as

MycorrhizaeOrchidaceaeEndophytesPhylogenySymbiosisWaiting RoomsEctomycorrhizal fungiendophytismmixotrophymycoheterotrophyrhizoctoniassaprobic fungi

Identifiers

PMID34718377
PMCPMC8835631
OpenAlexW3209147034

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.