ArticleJournal of evolutionary biology2023
Strong phylogenetic congruence between Tulasnella fungi and their associated Drakaeinae orchids.
Article in Journal of evolutionary biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Questioning the evidence for host-symbiont codiversification in mycorrhizal symbioses.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Review
- Discordance Down Under: Combining Phylogenomics and Fungal Symbioses to Detangle Difficult Nodes in a Diverse Tribe of Australian Terrestrial Orchids.Systematic biology · 2025Article
- Co-occurring orchid species associated with different low-abundance mycorrhizal fungi from the soil in a high-diversity conservation area in Denmark.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Strong phylogenetic congruence between Tulasnella fungi and their associated Drakaeinae orchids.Journal of evolutionary biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study of congruency between phylogenies of interacting species can provide a powerful approach for understanding the evolutionary history of symbiotic associations. Orchid mycorrhizal fungi can survive independently of orchids making cospeciation unlikely, leading us to predict that any congruence would arise from host-switches to closely related fungal species. The Australasian orchid subtribe Drakaeinae is an iconic group of sexually deceptive orchids that consists of approximately 66 species. In this study, we investigated the evolutionary relationships between representatives of all six Drakaeinae orchid genera (39 species) and their mycorrhizal fungi. We used an exome capture dataset to generate the first well-resolved phylogeny of the Drakaeinae genera. A total of 10 closely related Tulasnella Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) and previously described species were associated with the Drakaeinae orchids. Three of them were shared among orchid genera, with each genus associating with 1-6 Tulasnella lineages. Cophylogenetic analyses show Drakaeinae orchids and their Tulasnella associates exhibit significant congruence (p < 0.001) in the topology of their phylogenetic trees. An event-based method also revealed significant congruence in Drakaeinae-Tulasnella relationships, with duplications (35), losses (25), and failure to diverge (9) the most frequent events, with minimal evidence for cospeciation (1) and host-switches (2). The high number of duplications suggests that the orchids speciate independently from the fungi, and the fungal species association of the ancestral orchid species is typically maintained in the daughter species. For the Drakaeinae-Tulasnella interaction, a pattern of phylogenetic niche conservatism rather than coevolution likely explains the observed phylogenetic congruency in orchid and fungal phylogenies. Given that many orchid genera are characterized by sharing of fungal species between closely related orchid species, we predict that these findings may apply to a wide range of orchid lineages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.