ArticlePlant systematics and evolution = Entwicklungsgeschichte und Systematik der Pflanzen2025
Phylogenomics and classification of Cactaceae based on hundreds of nuclear genes.
Article in Plant systematics and evolution = Entwicklungsgeschichte und Systematik der Pflanzen, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nuclear Ribosomal ITS1-5.8S rDNA-ITS2 Region as a Phylogenetic Marker forInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- CactEcoDB: Trait, spatial, environmental, phylogenetic and diversification data for the cactus family.Scientific data · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phylogenetic classification based on evolutionary relationships is the standard approach in systematics, but Cactaceae has posed significant challenges due to the signature of its rapid radiation: low sequence divergence hindering phylogenetic resolution and enormous species diversity hindering attempts to adequately reflect phylogenetic diversity. Previous classifications mostly relied on joint assessment of multiple phylogenetic studies and/or intuition on morphological evolution, lacking comprehensive genomic analysis. Here, we propose a revised phylogenetic classification of Cactaceae, based on the Angiosperms353 set of phylogenomic markers, including 170 species, covering close to 90% of genera and common segregates. Coalescent-based gene tree-species tree reconciliation reveals a well-resolved phylogenetic backbone, mostly congruent with a previous plastid DNA-based summary phylogeny. Some unresolved areas surrounding the subfamilies Cactoideae and Pereskioideae remain however, where gene concordance analyses reveal complex evolutionary histories. We formally recognize the four traditional subfamilies Pereskioideae, Opuntioideae, Maihuenioideae, and Cactoideae, plus Blossfeldioideae and Leuenbergerioideae. Four subfamilies are monogeneric, while within Opuntioideae, we recognize three tribes (Opuntieae, Cylindropuntieae, and Pterocacteae) and within Cactoideae, we recognize eight tribes: Lymanbensonieae, Copiapoeae, Cacteae (incl. subtribes Echinocactinae, Ferocactinae, Cactinae), Phyllocacteae (incl. subtribes Corryocactinae, newly recognized Leptocereinae, Hylocereinae, Echinocereinae), Fraileae, Rhipsalideae, Notocacteae, and Cereeae (incl. subtribes Aylosterinae, Rebutiinae, Gymnocalyciinae, Cereinae, newly recognized Reicheocactinae, Trichocereinae). Our completely revised classification for all clades includes full generic synonymy accepting 155 genera. Overall, the phylogenetic structure of Cactaceae mirrors the angiosperm-wide pattern of enigmatic, species-poor lineages dispersed amongst clades that are orders of magnitude more species rich, revealing a mix of nested, 'explosive' radiations and orphan lineages. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00606-025-01948-z.
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.