ArticleThe New phytologist2025
The pitfalls of rDNA-based AMF identification: a comparative analysis of rDNA and protein-coding genes.
Article in The New phytologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The 3D genome of Gigaspora margarita unveils stable chromatin and nucleolar organization and symbiont-dependent genome dynamics.The New phytologist · 2026Article
- Community composition of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in Ontario tallgrass prairies of differing disturbance histories.Mycorrhiza · 2026Article
- Molecular markers for the study of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Co-occurrence networks reveal candidate AMF-microbe assemblages for generalist and crop-specific inocula.Mycorrhiza · 2026Article
- A new genus (MycoKeys · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Intragenomic polymorphism of rDNA in arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) has been largely overlooked in ecological and taxonomic studies, and the reliability of nuclear rDNA regions for species identification has not been comprehensively evaluated and compared with protein-coding genes. Analysis of rDNA copies from Rhizophagus irregularis strains revealed average intragenomic distances ranging from 0.08% (small subunit) to 6.9% (internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2)), with a maximum of 21.1% in ITS1 within strain DAOM 197198. Intragenomic rDNA polymorphisms are widespread throughout the AM fungal phylogeny, as confirmed by single nucleotide polymorphism density analysis and PacBio sequencing of 148 AM fungal cultures representing 44 species. All commonly targeted rDNA loci in ecological and taxonomic studies are polymorphic, with ITS and large subunit being the most variable, leading to paraphyletic clades and misleading phylogenetic interpretations among closely related species. No unique genetic distance threshold can be applied to identify AMF, because none of the examined protein-coding genes or partial rDNA had a barcode gap. However, indicative distance thresholds of 1% for glomalin, 1.1% for RPB1, and 1.7% for H
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.