2 results
Using evolutionary tools to search for novel psychoactive plants
- Part of
- Morten Halse-Gramkow, Madeleine Ernst, Nina Rønsted, Robert R. Dunn, C. Haris Saslis-Lagoudakis
-
- Journal:
- Plant Genetic Resources / Volume 14 / Issue 4 / December 2016
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 25 October 2016, pp. 246-255
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Bioprospecting is the search for valuable products from natural sources. Given that most species are poorly known, a key question is where to search. Ethnodirected bioprospecting approaches use traditional knowledge in the process of selecting plants to screen for desired properties. A complementary approach is to utilize phylogenetic analyses based on traditional uses or known chemistry to identify lineages in which desired properties are most likely to be found. Novel discoveries of plant bioactivity from these approaches can aid the development of treatments for diseases with unmet medical needs. For example, neurological disorders are a growing concern, and psychoactive plants used in traditional medicine may provide botanical sources for bioactivity relevant for treating diseases related to the brain and nervous system. However, no systematic study has explored the diversity and phylogenetic distribution of psychoactive plants. We compiled a database of 501 psychoactive plant species and their properties from published sources. We mapped these plant attributes on a phylogenetic tree of all land plant genera and showed that psychoactive properties are not randomly distributed on the phylogeny of land plants; instead certain plant lineages show overabundance of psychoactive properties. Furthermore, employing a ‘hot nodes’ approach to identify these lineages, we can narrow down our search for novel psychoactive plants to 8.5% of all plant genera for psychoactivity in general and 1–4% for specific categories of psychoactivity investigated. Our results showcase the potential of using a phylogenetic approach to bioprospect plants for psychoactivity and can serve as foundation for future investigations.
4 - Fig–fig wasp mutualism: the fall of the strict cospeciation paradigm?
- Edited by Sébastien Patiny, Université de Mons-Hainaut, Belgium
-
- Book:
- Evolution of Plant-Pollinator Relationships
- Published online:
- 05 January 2012
- Print publication:
- 08 December 2011, pp 68-102
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
At least three classic systems of nursery pollination mutualism are known: the fig (Ficus, Moraceae) – agaonid (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) association (Cook and Rasplus 2003), the yucca (Yucca, Hesperoyucca; Agavaceae) – yucca moths (Tegeticula, Parategeticula; Lepidoptera, Prodoxidae) association (Pellmyr 2003) and the Glodichion (Phyllanthaceae) – Epicephala moths (Lepidoptera, Gracillariidae) association (Kato et al. 2003). All these mutualisms are obligate, which means that each partner depends on the other for its own reproductive success. The insect pollinates the flowers and oviposits in the plant ovaries where the insect larvae subsequently feed on a subset of the developing seeds. A shift from mutualism to parasitism by the pollinating insect would lead to reproduction failure of the plant and, without host shift, to the extinction of both lineages. Therefore, the speciation of mutualistic pollinators is generally believed to be driven by the speciation of their host-plants. In this hypothesis, when an ancestral plant species splits into two daughter species, its mutualistic pollinator also splits. This scenario should result in perfect congruence of hosts and pollinator phylogenies (Farenholz’s rule) (Farenholz 1913). However, this seems increasingly unlikely. Indeed, more and more studies on different coevolved associations show that a strict Farenholz’s rule is not respected, even when a high level of host specificity exists (e.g. Paterson and Banks 2001; Desdevises et al. 2002; Charleston and Perkins 2006).
Topological incongruence between host and associate phylogenetic trees can result from processes like host switching, sorting events (extinction and lineage sorting), duplication events (speciation of the parasite independent of the host), and failure of the associate to diverge when the host diverges (“missing the boat”) (Page 1991; Page 1994; Page and Charleston 1998; Legendre et al. 2002; Charleston and Perkins 2006).