4.2 Article

Phylogenomics of Bartheletia paradoxa reveals its basal position in Agaricomycotina and that the early evolutionary history of basidiomycetes was rapid and probably not strictly bifurcating

Journal

MYCOLOGICAL PROGRESS
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 333-341

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11557-017-1349-2

Keywords

ABBA/BABA testing; Basidiomycota; Core eukaryotic genes; Fungi; Genomes; Phylogenetic network; Phylogeny

Categories

Funding

  1. LOEWE excellence initiative of the federal state of Hessen

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The higher level phylogeny of fungi has been addressed in previous studies, but for those analyses, either taxon sampling or gene sampling was low, or some basal lineages important for the inference of basidiomycete phylogeny were lacking. Here, a phylogenomic analysis based on highly conserved genes and including the enigmatic species Bartheletia paradoxa from Ginkgo biloba is presented. While phylogenetic analyses including also less conserved parts of core eukaryotic genes yielded a basal position for the extremophile genus Wallemia with low support, an exclusion of highly variable parts of these genes suggested Bartheletia paradoxa as the most basal member of the Agaricomycotina, but again with low support. Network analyses suggest a network-like evolution at the base of the Basidiomycota, supported by phylogenies based on single genes and gene clusters with shared topology. When further removing noise by removing poorly resolving genes, strong but not maximum support was obtained for Bartheletia paradoxa being the sister lineage to all other Agaricomycotina. We speculate that the lack of support for the early splits in Agaricomycotina and Basidiomycota can probably be explained by rapid radiation, linked to major evolutionary developments, such as, in the case of Basidiomycota, the advent of basidia in the last common ancestor.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available