Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36483967›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2022

Phylogenomic resolution of order- and family-level monocot relationships using 602 single-copy nuclear genes and 1375 BUSCO genes.

Prakash Raj Timilsena, Eric K Wafula, Craig F Barrett, Saravanaraj Ayyampalayam, Joel R McNeal, Jeremy D Rentsch, Michael R McKain, Karolina Heyduk, Alex Harkess, Matthieu Villegente and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Chromosome-level genome assembly of Pontederia cordata L. provides insights into its rapid adaptation and variation of flower colours.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Phylogeny ofInsects · 2023
    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

22 authors.

Prakash Raj TimilsenaDepartment of Biology and Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States.
Eric K WafulaDepartment of Biology and Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States.
Craig F BarrettDepartment of Biology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, United States.
Saravanaraj AyyampalayamGeorgia Advanced Computing Resource Center, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States.
Joel R McNealDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Biology Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, United States.
Jeremy D RentschDepartment of Biology, Francis Marion University, Florence, SC, United States.
Michael R McKainDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, United States.
Karolina HeydukSchool of Life Sciences, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, United States.
Alex HarkessHudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology, Huntsville, AL, United States.
Matthieu VillegenteInstitut des Sciences Exactes et Appliquees (ISEA), University of New Caledonia, Noumea, New Caledonia.
John G ConranAustralian Centre for Evolutionary Biology and Biodiversity & Sprigg Geobiology Centre, School of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Nicola IllingDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Bruno FoglianiInstitut des Sciences Exactes et Appliquees (ISEA), University of New Caledonia, Noumea, New Caledonia.
Cécile AnéDepartment of Botany, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
J Chris PiresDivision of Biological Sciences and Bond Life Sciences Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, United States.
Jerrold I DavisSchool of Integrative Plant Sciences and L.H. Bailey Hortorium, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
Wendy B ZomleferDepartment of Plant Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States.
Dennis W StevensonDepartment of Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Sean W GrahamNew York Botanical Garden, New York, NY, United States.
Thomas J GivnishDepartment of Botany, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
James Leebens-MackDepartment of Plant Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States.
Claude W dePamphilisDepartment of Biology and Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We assess relationships among 192 species in all 12 monocot orders and 72 of 77 families, using 602 conserved single-copy (CSC) genes and 1375 benchmarking single-copy ortholog (BUSCO) genes extracted from genomic and transcriptomic datasets. Phylogenomic inferences based on these data, using both coalescent-based and supermatrix analyses, are largely congruent with the most comprehensive plastome-based analysis, and nuclear-gene phylogenomic analyses with less comprehensive taxon sampling. The strongest discordance between the plastome and nuclear gene analyses is the monophyly of a clade comprising Asparagales and Liliales in our nuclear gene analyses, versus the placement of Asparagales and Liliales as successive sister clades to the commelinids in the plastome tree. Within orders, around six of 72 families shifted positions relative to the recent plastome analysis, but four of these involve poorly supported inferred relationships in the plastome-based tree. In Poales, the nuclear data place a clade comprising Ecdeiocoleaceae+Joinvilleaceae as sister to the grasses (Poaceae); Typhaceae, (rather than Bromeliaceae) are resolved as sister to all other Poales. In Commelinales, nuclear data place Philydraceae sister to all other families rather than to a clade comprising Haemodoraceae+Pontederiaceae as seen in the plastome tree. In Liliales, nuclear data place Liliaceae sister to Smilacaceae, and Melanthiaceae are placed sister to all other Liliales except Campynemataceae. Finally, in Alismatales, nuclear data strongly place Tofieldiaceae, rather than Araceae, as sister to all the other families, providing an alternative resolution of what has been the most problematic node to resolve using plastid data, outside of those involving achlorophyllous mycoheterotrophs. As seen in numerous prior studies, the placement of orders Acorales and Alismatales as successive sister lineages to all other extant monocots. Only 21.2% of BUSCO genes were demonstrably single-copy, yet phylogenomic inferences based on BUSCO and CSC genes did not differ, and overall functional annotations of the two sets were very similar. Our analyses also reveal significant gene tree-species tree discordance despite high support values, as expected given incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) related to rapid diversification. Our study advances understanding of monocot relationships and the robustness of phylogenetic inferences based on large numbers of nuclear single-copy genes that can be obtained from transcriptomes and genomes.

Indexed as

BUSCOconcordance analysisconserved single-copy genesmonocotsphylogenomicsphylotranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID36483967
PMCPMC9723157

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.