Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 460

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Using RPB1 sequences to improve phylogenetic inference among mushrooms (Inocybe, Agaricales)

Open access
Matheny, P. Brandon, Liu, Yajuan J., Ammirati, Joseph F., Hall, Benjamin D.·2002·American Journal of Botany

Abstract

An investigation of mushroom phylogeny using the largest subunit of RNA polymerase II gene sequences (RPB1) was conducted in comparison with nuclear ribosomal large subunit RNA gene sequences (nLSU) for the same set of taxa in the genus Inocybe (Agaricales, Basidiomycota). The two data sets, though not significantly incongruent, exhibit conflict among the placement of two taxa that exhibit long branches in the nLSU data set. In contrast, RPB1 terminal branch lengths are rather uniform. Bootstrap support is increased for clades in RPB1. Combined data sets increase the degree of confidence for several relationships. Overall, nLSU data do not yield a robust phylogeny when independently assessed by RPB1 sequences. This multigene study indicates that Inocybe is a monophyletic group composed of at least four distinct lineages—subgenus Mallocybe, section Cervicolores, section Rimosae, and subgenus Inocybe sensu Kühner, Kuyper, non Singer. Within subgenus Inocybe, two additional lineages, one composed of species with smooth basidiospores (clade I) and a second characterized by nodulose‐spored species (clade II), are recovered by RPB1 and combined data. The nLSU data recover only clade I. The genera Astrosporina and Inocybella cannot be recognized phylogenetically. “Supersections” Cortinatae and Marginatae are not monophyletic groups.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3732/ajb.89.4.688

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Metadata

Authors
Matheny, P. B., Liu, Y. J., Ammirati, J. F., & Hall, B. D.
Venue
American Journal of Botany
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-04
Volume
89
Issue
4
Pages
688-698
ISSN
  • 0002-9122 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-2197
OpenAlex
W2143126813
Cited by
460
References
0
FWCI
7.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.