Phylogenomic inference <i>in extremis</i>: A case study with mycoheterotroph plastomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Phylogenomic studies employing large numbers of genes, including those based on plastid genomes (plastomes), are becoming common. Nonphotosynthetic plants such as mycoheterotrophs (which rely on root-associated fungi for essential nutrients, including carbon) tend to have highly elevated rates of plastome evolution, substantial genome reduction, or both. Mycoheterotroph plastomes therefore provide excellent test cases for investigating how extreme conditions impact phylogenomic inference. METHODS: We used parsimony and likelihood analysis of protein-coding gene sets from published and newly completed plastomes to infer the phylogenetic placement of taxa from the 10 angiosperm families in which mycoheterotrophy evolved. KEY RESULTS: Despite multiple very long branches that reflect elevated substitution rates, and frequently patchy gene recovery due to genome reduction, inferred phylogenetic placements of most mycoheterotrophic lineages in DNA-based likelihood analyses are both well supported and congruent with other studies. Amino-acid-based likelihood placements are broadly consistent with DNA-based inferences, but extremely rate-elevated taxa can have unexpected placements-albeit with weak support. In contrast, parsimony analysis is strongly misled by long-branch attraction among many distantly related mycoheterotrophic monocots. CONCLUSIONS: Mycoheterotrophic plastomes provide challenging cases for phylogenomic inference, as substitutional rates can be elevated and genome reduction can lead to sparse gene recovery. Nonetheless, diverse likelihood frameworks provide generally well-supported and mutually concordant phylogenetic placements of mycoheterotrophs, consistent with recent phylogenetic studies and angiosperm-wide classifications. Previous predictions of parallel photosynthesis loss within families are supported for Burmanniaceae, Ericaceae, Gentianaceae, and Orchidaceae. Burmanniaceae and Thismiaceae should not be combined as a single family in Dioscoreales.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".