↓ Skip to main content

Phylogenomic resolution of order- and family-level monocot relationships using 602 single-copy nuclear genes and 1375 BUSCO genes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, November 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Phylogenomic resolution of order- and family-level monocot relationships using 602 single-copy nuclear genes and 1375 BUSCO genes
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, November 2022
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2022.876779
Pubmed ID
Authors

Prakash Raj Timilsena, Eric K. Wafula, Craig F. Barrett, Saravanaraj Ayyampalayam, Joel R. McNeal, Jeremy D. Rentsch, Michael R. McKain, Karolina Heyduk, Alex Harkess, Matthieu Villegente, John G. Conran, Nicola Illing, Bruno Fogliani, Cécile Ané, J. Chris Pires, Jerrold I. Davis, Wendy B. Zomlefer, Dennis W. Stevenson, Sean W. Graham, Thomas J. Givnish, James Leebens-Mack, Claude W. dePamphilis

Abstract

We assess relationships among 192 species in all 12 monocot orders and 72 of 77 families, using 602 conserved single-copy (CSC) genes and 1375 benchmarking single-copy ortholog (BUSCO) genes extracted from genomic and transcriptomic datasets. Phylogenomic inferences based on these data, using both coalescent-based and supermatrix analyses, are largely congruent with the most comprehensive plastome-based analysis, and nuclear-gene phylogenomic analyses with less comprehensive taxon sampling. The strongest discordance between the plastome and nuclear gene analyses is the monophyly of a clade comprising Asparagales and Liliales in our nuclear gene analyses, versus the placement of Asparagales and Liliales as successive sister clades to the commelinids in the plastome tree. Within orders, around six of 72 families shifted positions relative to the recent plastome analysis, but four of these involve poorly supported inferred relationships in the plastome-based tree. In Poales, the nuclear data place a clade comprising Ecdeiocoleaceae+Joinvilleaceae as sister to the grasses (Poaceae); Typhaceae, (rather than Bromeliaceae) are resolved as sister to all other Poales. In Commelinales, nuclear data place Philydraceae sister to all other families rather than to a clade comprising Haemodoraceae+Pontederiaceae as seen in the plastome tree. In Liliales, nuclear data place Liliaceae sister to Smilacaceae, and Melanthiaceae are placed sister to all other Liliales except Campynemataceae. Finally, in Alismatales, nuclear data strongly place Tofieldiaceae, rather than Araceae, as sister to all the other families, providing an alternative resolution of what has been the most problematic node to resolve using plastid data, outside of those involving achlorophyllous mycoheterotrophs. As seen in numerous prior studies, the placement of orders Acorales and Alismatales as successive sister lineages to all other extant monocots. Only 21.2% of BUSCO genes were demonstrably single-copy, yet phylogenomic inferences based on BUSCO and CSC genes did not differ, and overall functional annotations of the two sets were very similar. Our analyses also reveal significant gene tree-species tree discordance despite high support values, as expected given incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) related to rapid diversification. Our study advances understanding of monocot relationships and the robustness of phylogenetic inferences based on large numbers of nuclear single-copy genes that can be obtained from transcriptomes and genomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 30%
Student > Bachelor 2 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Student > Master 1 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 30%
Environmental Science 1 10%
Unknown 2 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,176,265
of 25,654,566 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#837
of 24,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,951
of 491,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#29
of 1,362 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,566 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,912 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 491,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,362 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.