Pervasive Phylogenomic Incongruence Underlies Evolutionary Relationships in Eyebrights (Euphrasia, Orobanchaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disentangling the phylogenetic relationships of taxonomically complex plant groups is often mired by challenges associated with recent speciation, hybridization, complex mating systems, and polyploidy. Here, we perform a phylogenomic analysis of eyebrights ( Euphrasia ), a group renowned for taxonomic complexity, with the aim of documenting the extent of phylogenetic discordance at both deep and at shallow phylogenetic scales. We generate whole-genome sequencing data and integrate this with prior genomic data to perform a comprehensive analysis of nuclear genomic, nuclear ribosomal (nrDNA), and complete plastid genomes from 57 individuals representing 36 Euphrasia species. The species tree analysis of 3,454 conserved nuclear scaffolds (46 Mb) reveals that at shallow phylogenetic scales postglacial colonization of North Western Europe occurred in multiple waves from discrete source populations, with most species not being monophyletic, and instead combining genomic variants from across clades. At a deeper phylogenetic scale, the Euphrasia phylogeny is structured by geography and ploidy, and partially by taxonomy. Comparative analyses show Southern Hemisphere tetraploids include a distinct subgenome indicative of independent polyploidy events from Northern Hemisphere taxa. In contrast to the nuclear genome analyses, the plastid genome phylogeny reveals limited geographic structure, while the nrDNA phylogeny is informative of some geographic and taxonomic affinities but more thorough phylogenetic inference is impeded by the retention of ancestral polymorphisms in the polyploids. Overall our results reveal extensive phylogenetic discordance at both deeper and shallower nodes, with broad-scale geographic structure of genomic variation but a lack of definitive taxonomic signal. This suggests that Euphrasia species either have polytopic origins or are maintained by narrow genomic regions in the face of extensive homogenizing gene flow. Moreover, these results suggest genome skimming will not be an effective extended barcode to identify species in groups such as Euphrasia , or many other postglacial species groups.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".