A genome-scale phylogeny of Fungi; insights into early evolution, radiations, and the relationship between taxonomy and phylogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Phylogenomic studies based on genome-scale amounts of data have greatly improved understanding of the tree of life. Despite their diversity, ecological significance, and biomedical and industrial importance, large-scale phylogenomic studies of Fungi are lacking. Furthermore, several evolutionary relationships among major fungal lineages remain controversial, especially those at the base of the fungal phylogeny. To begin filling these gaps and assess progress toward a genome-scale phylogeny of the entire fungal kingdom, we compiled a phylogenomic data matrix of 290 genes from the genomes of 1,644 fungal species that includes representatives from most major fungal lineages; we also compiled 11 additional data matrices by subsampling genes or taxa based on filtering criteria previously shown to improve phylogenomic inference. Analyses of these 12 data matrices using concatenation- and coalescent-based approaches yielded a robust phylogeny of the kingdom in which ∼85% of internal branches were congruent across data matrices and approaches used. We found support for several relationships that have been historically contentious (e.g., for the placement of Wallemiomycotina (Basidiomycota), as sister to Agaricomycotina), as well as evidence for polytomies likely stemming from episodes of ancient diversification (e.g., at the base of Basidiomycota). By examining the relative evolutionary divergence of taxonomic groups of equivalent rank, we found that fungal taxonomy is broadly aligned with genome sequence divergence, but also identified lineages, such as the subphylum Saccharomycotina, where current taxonomic circumscription does not fully account for their high levels of evolutionary divergence. Our results provide a robust phylogenomic framework to explore the tempo and mode of fungal evolution and directions for future fungal phylogenetic and taxonomic studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".