Search
2025 Volume 10
Article Contents
MINI REVIEW   Open Access    

The role of ancestral state reconstruction in mycological researches: methods and insights

More Information
  • Received: 01 June 2025
    Revised: 12 August 2025
    Accepted: 01 September 2025
    Published online: 20 October 2025
    Studies in Fungi  10 Article number: e022 (2025)  |  Cite this article
  • Clarifying the phylogenetic relationships of fungi by integrating genetic evolution and morphological characteristics is central to modern fungal taxonomy. Ancestral state reconstruction (ASR) is a key phylogenetic tool that applies statistical models to infer the evolution and timing of ancestral morphological traits using genetic data. By mapping traits onto phylogenies, ASR helps clarify the evolutionary transitions and origin of traits. This paper reviews the theoretical foundations of ASR and surveys commonly used methods and software in fungal systematics. It also highlights the practical applications of ASR in fungal taxonomy, particularly in reconstructing morphological evolution and testing molecular phylogenetic hypotheses. The findings highlight ASR as an indispensable tool for analyzing fungal phylogenies, addressing taxonomic controversies, and supporting evolutionary research. This review presents relevant insights into the application of ASR in fungal classification, providing methodological support, and a scientific basis for the classification and evolutionary studies of important fungal taxa. The future direction of the field is to integrate multi-omics, innovative algorithms, and ecological function inference to accurately analyze key events in evolutionary innovation.
  • 加载中
  • [1] Finarelli JA, Flynn JJ. 2006. Ancestral state reconstruction of body size in the Caniformia (Carnivora, Mammalia): the effects of incorporating data from the fossil record. Systematic Biology 55:301−13 doi: 10.1080/10635150500541698

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [2] Schäffer S, Koblmüller S, Pfingstl T, Sturmbauer C, Krisper G. 2010. Ancestral state reconstruction reveals multiple independent evolution of diagnostic morphological characters in the 'Higher Oribatida' (Acari), conflicting with current classification schemes. BMC Evolutionary Biology 10:246−62 doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-10-246

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [3] Nürk NM, Madriñán S, Carine MA, Chase MW, Blattner FR. 2013. Molecular phylogenetics and morphological evolution of St. John's wort (Hypericum; Hypericaceae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 66:1−16 doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2012.08.022

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [4] Sanger F, Thompson EOP, Kitai R. 1955. The amide groups of insulin. Biochemical Journal 59:509 doi: 10.1042/bj0590509

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [5] Pauling L, Zuckerkandl E, Henriksen T, Lövstad R. 1963. Chemical paleogenetics. Molecular 'restoration studies' of extinct forms of life. Acta Chemica Scandinavica 17:9−16 doi: 10.3891/acta.chem.scand.17s-0009

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [6] Joy JB, Liang RH, McCloskey RM, Nguyen T, Poon AFY. 2016. Ancestral reconstruction. PLoS Computational Biology 12:e1004763 doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004763

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [7] Schoch CL, Sung GH, López-Giráldez F, Townsend JP, Miadlikowska J, et al. 2009. The Ascomycota tree of life: a phylum-wide phylogeny clarifies the origin and evolution of fundamental reproductive and ecological traits. Systematic Biology 58:224−39 doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syp020

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [8] Caboň M, Eberhardt U, Looney B, Hampe F, Kolařík M, et al. 2017. New insights in Russula subsect. Rubrinae: phylogeny and the quest for synapomorphic characters. Mycological Progress 16:877−92 doi: 10.1007/s11557-017-1322-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [9] Yang DD, de Billerbeck GM, Zhang JJ, Rosenzweig F, Francois JM. 2017. Deciphering the origin, evolution, and physiological function of the subtelomeric aryl-alcohol dehydrogenase gene family in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 84:e01553-17 doi: 10.1128/AEM.01553-17

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [10] Wang XW, Varga T, Li QS, Nagy LG, Zhou LW. 2025. Complex evolutionary history of the fungal order Hymenochaetales revealed by analyses of trait evolution and diversification. Mycosphere 16:517−35 doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/16/1/7

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [11] Cunningham CW, Omland KE, Oakley TH. 1998. Reconstructing ancestral character states: a critical reappraisal. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13:361−66 doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01382-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [12] Pagel M. 1999. The maximum likelihood approach to reconstructing ancestral character states of discrete characters on phylogenies. Systematic Biology 48:612−22 doi: 10.1080/106351599260184

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13] Divakar PK, Kauff F, Crespo A, Leavitt SD, Lumbsch HT. 2013. Understanding phenotypical character evolution in parmelioid lichenized fungi (Parmeliaceae, Ascomycota). PLoS One 8:e83115 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083115

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [14] Soltis DE, Mort ME, Latvis M, Mavrodiev EV, Brian C O'Meara BC, et al. 2013. Phylogenetic relationships and character evolution analysis of Saxifragales using a supermatrix approach. American Journal of Botany 100:916−29 doi: 10.3732/ajb.1300044

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [15] Banks H, Forest F, Lewis G. 2014. Evolution and diversity of pollen morphology in tribe Cercideae (Leguminosae). TAXON 63:299−314 doi: 10.12705/632.37

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [16] Horn JW, Fisher JB, Tomlinson PB, Lewis CE, Laubengayer K. 2009. Evolution of lamina anatomy in the palm family (Arecaceae). American Journal of Botany 96:1462−86 doi: 10.3732/ajb.0800396

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [17] Givnish TJ, Pires JC, Graham SW, McPherson MA, Prince LM, et al. 2005. Repeated evolution of net venation and fleshy fruits among monocots in shaded habitats confirms a priori predictions: evidence from an ndhF phylogeny. Proceedings Biological Sciences 272:1481−90 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3067

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [18] Ricklefs RE. 2007. Estimating diversification rates from phylogenetic information. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22:601−10 doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.06.013

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [19] Webster NB, Van Dooren TJM, Schilthuizen M. 2012. Phylogenetic reconstruction and shell evolution of the Diplommatinidae (Gastropoda: Caenogastropoda). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 63(3):625−38 doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2012.02.004

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [20] Cunha AF, Genzano GN, Marques AC. 2015. Reassessment of morphological diagnostic characters and species boundaries requires taxonomical changes for the genus Orthopyxis L. Agassiz, 1862 (campanulariidae, hydrozoa) and some related campanulariids. PLoS One 10:e0117553 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117553

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [21] Hey J, Fitch WM, Ayala FJ. 2005. Systematics and the origin of species: An introduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:6515−19 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0501939102

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [22] Jeewon R, Hyde KD. 2016. Establishing species boundaries and new taxa among fungi: recommendations to resolve taxonomic ambiguities. Mycosphere 7:1669−77 doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/7/11/4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [23] Yang ZL. 2020. Trends in fungal systematics: more and more taxa. Mycosystema 39:1611−16 doi: 10.13346/j.mycosystema.200225

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [24] Hyde KD, Noorabadi MT, Thiyagaraja V, He MQ, Johnston PR, et al. 2024. The 2024 Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa. Mycosphere 15:5146−6239 doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/15/1/25

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [25] Wang K, Kirk PM, Yao YJ. 2020. Development trends in taxonomy, with a special reference to fungi. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 58:406−12 doi: 10.1111/jse.12538

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [26] Maharachchikumbura SSN, Chen Y, Ariyawansa HA, Hyde KD, Haelewaters D, et al. 2021. Integrative approaches for species delimitation in Ascomycota. Fungal Diversity 109(1):155−79 doi: 10.1007/s13225-021-00486-6

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [27] Zhao RL, He MQ, Liu JK. 2021. Using divergence time as an additional criterion in fungal systematics. Mycosystema 40:834−43 doi: 10.13346/j.mycosystema.210054

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [28] Zhou LW, May TW. 2023. Fungal taxonomy: current status and research agendas for the interdisciplinary and globalisation era. Mycology 14:52−59 doi: 10.1080/21501203.2022.2103194

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [29] Wu HX. 2022. Taxonomic Studies on the Fungi of the Microthyriaceae (in Chinese). Yunnan: Yunnan Science and Technology Press. 180 pp
    [30] Morlon H, Robin S, Hartig F. 2022. Studying speciation and extinction dynamics from phylogenies: addressing identifiability issues. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 37:497−506 doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2022.02.004

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [31] Johnston PR, Quijada L, Smith CA, Baral HO, Hosoya T, et al. 2019. A multigene phylogeny toward a new phylogenetic classification of Leotiomycetes. IMA Fungus 10:1 doi: 10.1186/s43008-019-0002-x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [32] Ji X, Zhou JL, Song CG, Xu TM, Wu DM, et al. 2022. Taxonomy, phylogeny and divergence times of Polyporus (Basidiomycota) and related genera. Mycosphere 13:1−52 doi: 10.5943/mycosphere/13/1/1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [33] Sun YF, Xing JH, He XL, Wu DM, Song CG, et al. 2022. Species diversity, systematic revision and molecular phylogeny of Ganodermataceae (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) with an emphasis on Chinese collections. Studies in Mycology 101:287−415 doi: 10.3114/sim.2022.101.05

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [34] Liu S, Sun YF, Ji X, Song CG, Xu TM, et al. 2023. Molecular phylogeny and taxonomy of the remarkable genus Leptoporus (Polyporales, Basidiomycota) with description of a new species from Southwest China. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 12:1116035 doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.1116035

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [35] Vandamme AM. 2003. Basic concepts of molecular evolution. In The Phylogenetic Handbook: A Practical Approach to Phylogenetic Analysis and Hypothesis Testing. eds. Lemey P, Salemi M, Vandamme AM. UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–30 doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511819049.003
    [36] Godini R, Fallahi H. 2019. A brief overview of the concepts, methods and computational tools used in phylogenetic tree construction and gene prediction. Meta Gene 21:100586 doi: 10.1016/j.mgene.2019.100586

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [37] Huang Y. 2012. Molecular Phylogenetics (in Chinese). Beijing: Science Press. 533 pp
    [38] Edwards SV, Xi Z, Janke A, Faircloth BC, McCormack JE, et al. 2016. Implementing and testing the multispecies coalescent model: a valuable paradigm for phylogenomics. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 94:447−62 doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2015.10.027

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [39] Pagel M. 1999. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401:877−84 doi: 10.1038/44766

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [40] Huelsenbeck JP, Bollback JP. 2001. Empirical and hierarchical Bayesian estimation of ancestral states. Systematic Biology 50:351−66 doi: 10.1080/106351501300317978

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [41] Koch NM, Garwood RJ, Parry LA. 2021. Fossils improve phylogenetic analyses of morphological characters. Proceedings Biological Sciences 288(1950):20210044 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2021.0044

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [42] Roure B, Baurain D, Philippe H. 2013. Impact of missing data on phylogenies inferred from empirical phylogenomic data sets. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30:197−214 doi: 10.1093/molbev/mss208

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [43] Ryan MJ, Rand AS. 1995. Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in túngara frogs. Science 269:390−92 doi: 10.1126/science.269.5222.390

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [44] Brusatte SL, Sakamoto M, Montanari S, Harcourt Smith WEH. 2012. The evolution of cranial form and function in theropod dinosaurs: insights from geometric morphometrics. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 25:365−77 doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02427.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [45] Simões TR, Caldwell MW, Tałanda M, Bernardi M, Palci A, et al. 2018. The origin of squamates revealed by a Middle Triassic lizard from the Italian Alps. Nature 557:706−9 doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0093-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [46] Koh O. 2020. The evolutionary origin of developmental enhancers in vertebrates: Insights from non-model species. Development, Growth & Differentiation 62:326−33 doi: 10.1111/dgd.12662

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [47] Upham NS, Esselstyn JA, Jetz W. 2019. Inferring the mammal tree: Species-level sets of phylogenies for questions in ecology, evolution, and conservation. PLoS Biology 17(12):e3000494 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000494

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [48] Schönenberger J, Anderberg AA, Sytsma KJ. 2005. Molecular phylogenetics and patterns of floral evolution in the Ericales. International Journal of Plant Sciences 166:265−88 doi: 10.1086/427198

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [49] Sauquet H, von Balthazar M, Magallón S, Doyle JA, Endress PK, et al. 2017. The ancestral flower of angiosperms and its early diversification. Nature Communications 8:16047 doi: 10.1038/ncomms16047

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [50] Puttick MN, Morris JL, Williams TA, Cox CJ, Edwards D, et al. 2018. The interrelationships of land plants and the nature of the ancestral embryophyte. Current Biology 28:733−45 doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.063

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [51] Edwards EJ, Smith SA. 2010. Phylogenetic analyses reveal the shady history of C4 grasses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107:2532−37 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909672107

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [52] Lu LM, Mao LF, Yang T, Ye JF, Liu B, et al. 2018. Evolutionary history of the angiosperm flora of China. Nature 554:234−38 doi: 10.1038/nature25485

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [53] Smith SA, Brown JW. 2018. Constructing a broadly inclusive seed plant phylogeny. American Journal of Botany 105:302−14 doi: 10.1002/ajb2.1019

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [54] Li JC, Wu HX, Li Y, Li XH, Song JY, et al. 2022. Taxonomy, phylogenetic and ancestral area reconstruction in Phyllachora, with four novel species from Northwestern China. Journal of Fungi 8:520 doi: 10.3390/jof8050520

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [55] Rathnayaka AR, Thilini Chethana KW, Phillips AJL, Liu JK, Samarakoon MC, et al. 2023. Re-evaluating Botryosphaeriales: ancestral state reconstructions of selected characters and evolution of nutritional modes. Journal of Fungi 9:184 doi: 10.3390/jof9020184

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [56] Bateson W, Mendel G. 2009. Mendel's Principles of Heredity. UK: Cambridge University Press. 212 pp doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511694462
    [57] Fisher RA. 1919. XV.—The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52(2):399−433 doi: 10.1017/S0080456800012163

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [58] Alexopoulos CJ, Mims CW, Blackwell MM. 1996. Introductory Mycology, 4th edition. Wiley Press. 880 pp https://zlib.pub/book/introductory-mycology-3af45coss4bg
    [59] Cseh P, Merényi Z, Bóna L, Varga T, Bóka K, et al. 2024. Taxonomic characterisation of the Regianum clade (genus Tuber) and the trait evolution of spore size among true truffles. Mycological Progress 23:11 doi: 10.1007/s11557-024-01949-1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [60] Park Y, Metzger BPH, Thornton JW. 2022. Epistatic drift causes gradual decay of predictability in protein evolution. Science 376:823−30 doi: 10.1126/science.abn6895

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [61] Gould SJ, Eldredge N. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In Models in Paleobiology. ed. Schopf TJM. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Company. pp. 82–115 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221958736_Punctuated_Equilibria_An_Alternative_to_Phyletic_Gradualism
    [62] Stanley SM. 1975. A theory of evolution above the species level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 72(2):646−50 doi: 10.1073/pnas.72.2.646

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [63] Kumar S. 2005. Molecular clocks: four decades of evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics 6:654−62 doi: 10.1038/nrg1659

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [64] Margoliash E. 1963. Primary structure and evolution of cytochrome C. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 50(4):672−79 doi: 10.1073/pnas.50.4.672

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [65] Grantham T. 2004. The role of fossils in phylogeny reconstruction: why is it so difficult to integrate paleobiological and neontological evolutionary biology? Biology and Philosophy 19:687−720 doi: 10.1007/s10539-005-0370-z

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [66] Felsenstein J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. The American Naturalist 125:1−15 doi: 10.1086/284325

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [67] Fitch WM. 1971. Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology. Systematic Biology 20:406−16 doi: 10.1093/sysbio/20.4.406

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [68] Swofford DL, Maddison WP. 1987. Reconstructing ancestral character states under Wagner parsimony. Mathematical Biosciences 87:199−229 doi: 10.1016/0025-5564(87)90074-5

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [69] Collins TM, Wimberger PH, Naylor GJP. 1994. Compositional bias, character-state bias, and character-state reconstruction using parsimony. Systematic Biology 43:482−96 doi: 10.1093/sysbio/43.4.482

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [70] Schluter D, Price T, Mooers AØ, Ludwig D. 1997. Likelihood of ancestor states in adaptive radiation. Evolution 51(6):1699−711 doi: 10.2307/2410994

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [71] Huelsenbeck JP, Ronquist F. 2001. MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics 17(8):754−55 doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [72] Yang Z, Rannala B. 2012. Molecular phylogenetics: principles and practice. Nature Reviews Genetics 13:303−14 doi: 10.1038/nrg3186

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [73] Cunningham CW. 1999. Some limitations of ancestral character-state reconstruction when testing evolutionary hypotheses. Systematic Biology 48:665−74 doi: 10.1080/106351599260238

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [74] Omland KE. 1999. The assumptions and challenges of ancestral state reconstructions. Systematic Biology 48:604−11 doi: 10.1080/106351599260175

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [75] Mooers AØ, Schluter D. 1999. Reconstructing ancestor states with maximum likelihood: support for one- and two-rate models. Systematic Biology 48:623−33 doi: 10.1080/106351599260193

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [76] Lewis PO. 2001. A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Systematic Biology 50:913−25 doi: 10.1080/106351501753462876

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [77] Hibbett DS. 2004. Trends in morphological evolution in homobasidiomycetes inferred using maximum likelihood: a comparison of binary and multistate approaches. Systematic Biology 53:889−903 doi: 10.1080/10635150490522610

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [78] Schultz TE, Churchill GA. 1999. The role of subjectivity in reconstructing ancestral character states: a Bayesian approach to unknown rates, states and transformation asymmetries. Systematic Biology 48:651−64 doi: 10.1080/106351599260229

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [79] Pagel M, Meade A, Barker D. 2004. Bayesian estimation of ancestral character states on phylogenies. Systematic Biology 53:673−84 doi: 10.1080/10635150490522232

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [80] Ronquist F. 2004. Bayesian inference of character evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:475−81 doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.002

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [81] Posada D, Buckley TR. 2004. Model selection and model averaging in phylogenetics: advantages of Akaike information criterion and bayesian approaches over likelihood ratio tests. Systematic Biology 53:793−808 doi: 10.1080/10635150490522304

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [82] Pagel M, Lutzoni F. 2002. Accounting for phylogenetic uncertainty in comparative studies of evolution and adaptation. In Biological Evolution and Statistical Physics. Lecture Notes in Physics, eds. Lässig M, Valleriani A, Vol 585. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 148−61 doi: 10.1007/3-540-45692-9_8
    [83] Pagel M, Meade A. 2006. Bayesian analysis of correlated evolution of discrete characters by reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo. The American Naturalist 167:808−25 doi: 10.1086/503444

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [84] Ekman S, Andersen HL, Wedin M. 2008. The limitations of ancestral state reconstruction and the evolution of the ascus in the Lecanorales (lichenized Ascomycota). Systematic Biology 57:141−56 doi: 10.1080/10635150801910451

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [85] Yu Y, Blair C, He X. 2020. RASP 4: ancestral state reconstruction tool for multiple genes and characters. Molecular Biology and Evolution 37:604−06 doi: 10.1093/molbev/msz257

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [86] Revell LJ. 2012. phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3(2):217−23 doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00169.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [87] Réblová M, Kolařík M, Nekvindová J, Réblová K, Sklenář F, et al. 2021. Phylogenetic reassessment, taxonomy, and biogeography of Codinaea and similar fungi. Journal of Fungi 7(12):1097 doi: 10.3390/jof7121097

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [88] Lücking R, Papong K, Thammathaworn A, Boonpragob K. 2008. Historical biogeography and phenotype-phylogeny of Chroodiscus (lichenized Ascomycota: Ostropales: Graphidaceae). Journal of Biogeography 35(12):2311−27 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.01972.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [89] Spribille T, Resl P, Stanton DE, Tagirdzhanova G. 2022. Evolutionary biology of lichen symbioses. New Phytologist 234:1566−82 doi: 10.1111/nph.18048

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [90] Floudas D, Binder M, Riley R, Barry K, Blanchette RA, et al. 2012. The Paleozoic origin of enzymatic lignin decomposition reconstructed from 31 fungal genomes. Science 336:1715−19 doi: 10.1126/science.1221748

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [91] Hibbett DS. 2001. Shiitake mushrooms and molecular clocks: historical biogeography of Lentinula. Journal of Biogeography 28:231−41 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2001.00528.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [92] Wang XW, Jiang JH, Liu SL, Gafforov Y, Zhou LW. 2022. Species diversification of the coniferous pathogenic fungal genus Coniferiporia (Hymenochaetales, Basidiomycota) in association with its biogeography and host plants. Phytopathology 112:404−13 doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-05-21-0181-R

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [93] Aime MC, McTaggart AR, Mondo SJ, Duplessis S. 2017. Phylogenetics and phylogenomics of rust fungi. Advances in Genetics 100:267−307 doi: 10.1016/bs.adgen.2017.09.011

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [94] Kijpornyongpan T, Mondo SJ, Barry K, Sandor L, Lee J, et al. 2018. Broad genomic sampling reveals a smut pathogenic ancestry of the fungal clade Ustilaginomycotina. Molecular Biology and Evolution 35(8):1840−54 doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy072

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [95] Gadd GM. 2006. Fungi in Biogeochemical Cycles. UK: Cambridge University Press. 469 pp doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511550522
    [96] Hawksworth DL, Lücking R. 2017. Fungal diversity revisited: 2.2 to 3.8 million species. Microbiology Spectrum 5(4):10.1128/microbiolspec.funk-0052-2016 doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.FUNK-0052-2016

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [97] Gargas A, DePriest PT, Grube M, Tehler A. 1995. Multiple origins of lichen symbioses in fungi suggested by SSU rDNA phylogeny. Science 268(5216):1492−95 doi: 10.1126/science.7770775

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [98] Fisher MC, Henk DA, Briggs CJ, Brownstein JS, Madoff LC, et al. 2012. Emerging fungal threats to animal, plant and ecosystem health. Nature 484(7393):186−94 doi: 10.1038/nature10947

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [99] Yang Z, Rannala B. 2006. Bayesian estimation of species divergence times under a molecular clock using multiple fossil calibrations with soft bounds. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23(1):212−26 doi: 10.1093/molbev/msj024

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [100] Berbee ML, Taylor JW. 2010. Dating the molecular clock in fungi—how close are we? Fungal Biology Reviews 24(1):1−16 doi: 10.1016/j.fbr.2010.03.001

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Wang YT, Wu HX, Chomnunti P. 2025. The role of ancestral state reconstruction in mycological researches: methods and insights. Studies in Fungi 10: e022 doi: 10.48130/sif-0025-0023
    Wang YT, Wu HX, Chomnunti P. 2025. The role of ancestral state reconstruction in mycological researches: methods and insights. Studies in Fungi 10: e022 doi: 10.48130/sif-0025-0023

Figures(2)  /  Tables(2)

Article Metrics

Article views(627) PDF downloads(283)

Other Articles By Authors

MINI REVIEW   Open Access    

The role of ancestral state reconstruction in mycological researches: methods and insights

Studies in Fungi  10 Article number: e022  (2025)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Clarifying the phylogenetic relationships of fungi by integrating genetic evolution and morphological characteristics is central to modern fungal taxonomy. Ancestral state reconstruction (ASR) is a key phylogenetic tool that applies statistical models to infer the evolution and timing of ancestral morphological traits using genetic data. By mapping traits onto phylogenies, ASR helps clarify the evolutionary transitions and origin of traits. This paper reviews the theoretical foundations of ASR and surveys commonly used methods and software in fungal systematics. It also highlights the practical applications of ASR in fungal taxonomy, particularly in reconstructing morphological evolution and testing molecular phylogenetic hypotheses. The findings highlight ASR as an indispensable tool for analyzing fungal phylogenies, addressing taxonomic controversies, and supporting evolutionary research. This review presents relevant insights into the application of ASR in fungal classification, providing methodological support, and a scientific basis for the classification and evolutionary studies of important fungal taxa. The future direction of the field is to integrate multi-omics, innovative algorithms, and ecological function inference to accurately analyze key events in evolutionary innovation.

    • Ancestral state reconstruction (ASR) refers to inferring characteristics of individuals or populations from their common ancestors, mapping morphological or ecological traits to molecular phylogenetic relationships, and providing insights into biological evolutionary processes[13]. The conceptual foundation of ASR is often attributed to Emile Zuckerkandl & Linus Pauling, who were inspired by Frederick Sanger's 1955 method for determining protein primary structure through amino acid sequencing[4]. They proposed that these protein sequences can be used not only to infer phylogenetic relationships but also to reconstruct ancestral protein sequences at the root node of phylogenetic trees[5,6]. ASR is typically employed to link morphology or ecology to molecular phylogenetic studies. ASR can be used to infer ancestral character states of organisms from data such as genetic or protein sequences, morphological features, and ecological traits[712]. ASR structures trait evolution[1315], to help reveal homology, conservation, and trait correlations[16,17], analyze diversification rates[18], link micro- and macro-evolutionary patterns[19], and reassess taxonomic systems[2,20].

      The species is the principal unit of evolution[21]. Fungal taxonomy evolves with ongoing species discovery, yet critical groups remain unresolved[2224]. Fungal taxa have been described at a rate of only 3%–6%[25]. Establishing a natural taxonomic system is imperative to facilitate the scientific comprehension of species diversity[23,2528]. Traditionally, fungal taxonomy relied primarily on morphological characteristics, such as the shape of the ascomata, ascospore morphology, and the number of septa in ascomycetes[26,29]. Modern fungal taxonomy integrates molecular phylogenetics with morphological, genetic, and ecological data, leading to continuous refinement of classification systems[26,28]. Phylogenetic analysis forms the foundation of evolutionary research by reconstructing the relationships among ancestral lineages. In fungi, molecular phylogenetics has proven particularly valuable for resolving species relationships, and clarifying taxonomic classifications[3034]. Phylogenetic trees depict evolutionary relationships and serve as a framework for interpreting evolutionary history, classification, character evolution, and divergence times[35,36]. Tree annotation integrates taxonomic traits, biogeography, ancestral reconstructions, niches, and co-phylogenetic associations to enable multidimensional insights into evolutionary dynamics[37,38].

      ASR is a distinct analytical approach used to infer the historical states of morphological or molecular traits across a phylogeny. While ASR is a standalone method, its integration into phylogenetic trees through visual annotations—such as colors, symbols, or node labels—transforms it into a key component of tree annotation[2]. ASR is typically performed following phylogenetic tree inferences to estimate ancestral character states, using evolutionary modes. By leveraging genetic information embedded in the phylogeny, it helps reconstruct the sequence and timing of evolutionary transitions[39,40]. Input matrices combine phylogeny (branch lengths) and extant states; however, reconstruction accuracy declines over evolutionary timescales due to information loss[39,41], and ambiguous intermediate states may reduce confidence in inferences[19,42].

      ASR has been widely applied in evolutionary studies of both animals and plants. In animals, it has been used to reconstruct Túngara Frog calls[43], identify ancestral morphological traits such as dinosaur cranial structures, and trace the origins of key adaptions[4446] and infer the evolution of behaviors like sociality[47]. In plants, applications include investigating the origin and evolution of traits such as vascular tissues, seeds, and flowers[4850], revealing adaptations such as drought and salt tolerance, and photosynthetic pathways (C3, C4, and CAM)[51], and reconstructing biogeographic histories including angiosperm dispersal and tropical rainforest origins[52,53]. In fungal evolution, ASR has focused on ecological niche, geographic distribution, and the evolution of morphological traits (e.g., spore characteristics)[16,54,55]. These traits are generally classified as either continuous or discrete. Continuous traits—such as spore size—vary along a numerical scale and are influenced by multiple genes and environmental factors. In contrast, discrete traits fall into distinct categories, such as spore morphology or colony color, and are often controlled by a few major-effect genes[5658].

      ASR is a rapidly advancing field that integrates computational methods with diverse biological datasets to infer the evolutionary history of traits. Despite its widespread application in animals and plants, ASR remains underutilized and fragmented in fungal research. To assess the current landscape, a literature search was conducted using the Web of Science database (www.webofscience.com/wos, 29 April 2025), identifying 2,911 ASR-related articles, of which 1,882 were published in the last decade (2015–present). Among them, 880 studies focused on animals, 562 on plants, 75 on fungi, and 365 on other organisms (Fig. 1).

      Figure 1. 

      Summary of articles on ancestral state reconstruction found on the Web of Science.

      This review aims to systematically consolidate recent progress in the application of ASR to fungal taxonomy. The advantages and limitations of commonly used methods and tools are evaluated, and the current state of ASR research is examined across major fungal groups (e.g., Ascomycota and Basidiomycota). By identifying challenges and gaps, future directions to advance the field are proposed. This review provides a foundation for improving ASR approaches in mycology, and offers new insights into the evolutionary history of fungal taxa.

    • ASR serves as a pivotal evolutionary tool, resolving contentious fungal morphological evolution, validating molecular phylogenies through ancestral traits, and elucidating coevolution of ecological-morphological adaptations. These are becoming increasingly prevalent analyses in molecular systematics[16,59]. These methods rely on three fundamental assumptions: constant trait transition rates across phylogenies; correlations between neutral evolutionary variation and phenotypic expression; and available likelihood models with appropriate priors for Bayesian frameworks[60].

      Evolutionary diversification exhibits heterogeneous rates driven by distinct mechanisms, including speciation acceleration factors (small-population drift, regulatory mutations, polyploidization), adaptive radiation bursts in brief geological windows, and punctuated equilibrium dynamics[61]. Crucially, large-scale evolutionary patterns manifest predominantly through gradual incremental change—a fundamental premise for evolutionary timescale estimation[62,63]. Despite lineage-specific rate variation (e.g., accelerated molecular clocks in short-generation taxa), conserved linear correlations between biomolecule divergence and post-divergence time underpin molecular clock theory[63,64].

      In ASR, taxonomic units located at or near the ancestral position often provide the most critical information. The role of fossils in this process is indispensable, as they contribute at least two significant sources of information that are vital to the reconstruction of ancestral lineages, particularly in revealing the limitations of evolutionary trends previously observed[65]. First, analyzing fossil data enables a comprehensive assessment of the extent and spatial-temporal patterns of character-state transitions across evolutionary clades. Second, temporal constraints embedded in the fossil record allow empirical validation of individual observations used in node reconstructions, thereby refining the accuracy of ASRs[65,66].

    • ASR is based on two main principles: the principle of parsimony[6769], and the principle of stochastic modeling of trait evolution[20,7072]. The principle of parsimony centers on finding the hypothesis that has the lowest total number of trait change events (e.g., emergence, change of a trait) in the evolutionary tree, with the idea that the 'simplest' explanation is the most likely[68]. The stochastic modeling principle centers on constructing mathematical models (e.g., Brownian motion models) that treat the evolution of traits over time as a stochastic process, and calculating the likelihood of ancestral states based on this model[39,66]. Based on these principles, three main methodological frameworks for ancestry state reconstruction exist: maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood, and the Bayesian inference (Table 1).

      Table 1.  The main approaches of ASR in mycological research.

      Principle Method
      Parsimony Maximum parsimony
      Stochastic modeling of trait evolution Maximum likelihood
      Bayesian inference

      Maximum parsimony was the earliest ASR approach developed. It infers ancestral states by minimizing the number of evolutionary changes required across a phylogeny, assuming all changes are equally probable[67]. This method is computationally simple and efficient, but it does not incorporate branch lengths or the timing of evolutionary events, which can lead to oversimplified reconstructions and systematic biases[19,73,74].

      In contrast, maximum likelihood introduces statistical rigor by modeling character evolution using Continuous-Time Markov Models (CTMMs)[20,7577]. It calculates the probability of observed data given a particular tree and model, allowing for explicit testing of evolutionary hypotheses. Likelihood-based methods account for branch lengths and use statistical criteria such as the Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT), and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) to compare competing models[7881]. In the maximum likelihood estimation framework, AIC is preferentially associated because its goal of directly optimizing prediction accuracy is consistent with the core of the likelihood approach, while BIC focuses on identifying the true model, and AIC is mainly used for small-sample corrections[81]. However, maximum likelihood generates point estimates that may be sensitive to phylogenetic uncertainty—an important consideration in fungal ASR[79,8284].

      Bayesian inference builds upon likelihood approaches by incorporating uncertainty in both phylogenetic trees and model parameters. It estimates the posterior probability of ancestral states through Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling, integrating across different possible trees and evolutionary models[20]. Bayesian methods allow for robust hypothesis testing and provide a probabilistic distribution of ancestral traits, making them especially valuable for modeling complex evolutionary scenarios in fungi.

      In summary, maximum likelihood methods are widely used to reconstruct the ancestral morphology of fungi, particularly in groups with high morphological diversity or unresolved taxonomic issues. Bayesian methods are more often applied to ancestral distribution reconstructions, especially for taxa with defined ecological roles or complex biogeographic patterns, and are valuable for exploring species origins and historical dispersal.

    • While ASR is inherently characterized by uncertainty, this does not imply that its estimates are unreliable or invalid. This uncertainty is mainly reflected in the ambiguity of the reconstruction results, or in the existence of multiple equally parsimonious reconstruction schemes[68]. Thus, any hypothesis testing of ancestral state eigenvalues is highly dependent on the validity of the model fitted.

      ASR is employed to trace the evolutionary history of biological traits, such as resolving homology vs convergence, inferring extinct ancestral states, or testing taxon monophyly. It relies on a robust phylogenetic framework and appropriate evolutionary models (e.g., maximum likelihood or Bayesian for discrete traits, Brownian motion for continuous traits) to estimate node state probabilities, integrate statistical tests, and assess uncertainty, thereby providing quantitative evidence for trait evolution and informing taxonomic revisions. Commonly used ASR tools include the R package phytools, Reconstruct Ancestral State in Phylogenies (RASP), and Mesquite. This review evaluates the advantages and limitations of these tools and web-based platforms based on published studies (Table 2).

      Table 2.  Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the software and online websites for constructing ASR.

      SoftwareAdvantagesDisadvantages
      BeastFramework for testing evolutionary hypotheses that does not require a single tree topology to be defined.It consumes computational resources. Fossil-based phylogenetic positions inferred from morphological data still need to be considered in conjunction with other evidence (e.g. palaeontological evidence).
      DiversitreeFocuses on statistical modeling of species diversity and lineage differentiation, which can be used to explore patterns of species formation and extinction.Performs better with large amounts of data.
      MesquiteThis is professional evolutionary biology software optimized for the analysis of comparative organism data, and is ideal for small datasets and educational applications.Processing large data sets is inefficient and the functionality is relatively simple, making it unsuitable for complex analysis.
      Multi-stateAllowing the system and its components to assume more than two performance levels can provide a more realistic and accurate representation.Involves the estimation of a larger number of rate parameters.
      PHYLIPOpen source and free, supports a wide range of phylogenetic analysis methods.The interface is older, less intuitive, and the functionality is relatively basic.
      RPowerful and flexible.It cannot be used to develop web-type or internet-type applications.
      RASPSupports multiple analysis methods and allows users to select models according to data characteristics, offering greater flexibility.Running Bayesian methods or complex models on large datasets or phylogenetic trees is time-consuming and requires high-spec hardware.

      To demonstrate the applicability of ASR in mycology, two representative case studies are presented. For discrete traits, Li et al.[54] employed RASP 4.2[85] to infer ancestral geographic distributions of Phyllachora species. For continuous traits, Cseh et al.[59] utilized the phytools package[86] in R4.3.2 to reconstruct ancestral spore traits in the genus Tuber. Building on these examples, we propose a standardized ASR workflow (Fig. 2) that integrates both discrete and continuous trait analysis.

      Figure 2. 

      ASR methods commonly used for fungal groups[54,59].

    • Increasingly applied to Ascomycota, ASR has emerged as a key evolutionary tool, exemplified by tracing yeast enzyme evolution. By reactivating ancestral dehydrogenases in fragmented AAD homologs, Yang et al. provided functional evidence supporting ancestral lignin degradation roles[9]. Furthermore, ASR uniting with molecular dating analysis has been applied to the study of the species origin and geographic distribution patterns of different taxa of fungi. For instance, Réblová et al. hypothesized that the genus Codinaea originated in the temperate zone and transitioned to the tropics, with ancestral distributions in Eurasia and the Americas and regional derivation areas in Africa and Australia[87]. In the study of new species of the genus Phyllachora in the southwest of China, the ancestral distribution of the species of the genus was analyzed by the RASP based on the global distribution of extant species of the genus, and the species of Phyllachora originated in Latin America at about 194 Mya. The biogeographic distribution of the species is influenced by historical events. In addition, the migration of Phyllachora species from Latin America to Southeast Asia occurred during the Jurassic period[54]. Rathnayaka et al. hypothesized that the order Botryosphaeriales originated during the Cretaceous period, at which point the Botryosphaeriaceae and Phyllostictaceae diverged from each other during the Mesozoic Era[55]. ASR has been instrumental in reconstructing ascomycetes' morphological evolution, revealing through ASR that the Pezizomycotina lineage—including major subclades such as Leotiomyceta, Sordariomycetes, and Dothideomyceta—possessed an open-type fruiting body (apothecium) with an exposed hymenium as the ancestral reproductive structure[15]. For instance, Chroodiscus is inferred to have originated in the Late Cretaceous (~80 Mya) on the Gondwanan landmass (e.g., South America/Australia). Its subsequent radiation into tropical and subtropical regions occurred via continental fragmentation and long-distance dispersal. At the same time, island isolation (e.g., Pacific Islands) facilitated the formation of localized endemic species[88]. ASR by Divakar et al., through the maximum likelihood method, revealed that the ancestor of the Parmeliaceae is a kind of foliose lichen[13]. Similarly, Spribille et al. applied ASR to trace lichen symbiosis origins, revealing its recurrent evolution in fungi, mainly Ascomycota, with some Basidiomycota with convergent symbiotic traits. Molecular clock analyses dated lichenized lineages to the Devonian (approximately 400 million years ago), aligning with land plant radiation, highlighting their pivotal role in early terrestrial ecosystem formation[89]. Meanwhile, ASR has also been used to study the evolution of decomposition capacity and the ecological functions of saprophytic ascomycetes. Floudas et al. reconstructed the evolutionary history of ligninolytic enzymes (e.g., lignin peroxidase LiP, manganese peroxidase MnP) by analyzing the genomic data of 31 seeded cysticolous fungi and found that their origins can be traced back to the Paleozoic era[90].

      In Basidiomycota research, ASR serves as a powerful tool to unravel evolutionary trajectories of wood-decaying fungi, including decay modes, mating systems, and ecological adaptations. Hibbett's ASR analysis of 130 Homobasidiomycetes species, using nuclear/mitochondrial DNA and parsimony methods, inferred ancestral white-rot decay. Findings indicate recurrent evolution of brown-rot decay and bipolar mating systems, while coniferous substrate decomposition emerged as a widespread polymorphic trait[91]. Furthermore, ASR has been successfully applied to resolve the evolution of morphological traits in Agarics taxa. Caboň et al. used multi-locus phylogenetic reconstruction in their study of Rubrinae to distinguish R. firmula, R. rubra, R. rutila, and R. veternosa in a well-supported Rubrinae branch. These species have traditionally been categorised into two distinct subclasses based on morphology. However, ASRs demonstrated that their common ancestor possessed yellow spores and was related to Angiosperms. It is noteworthy that the possession of dark yellow or ochre spores characterises all species within the Rubrinae branch[8]. In the study of Coniferiporia, Wang et al. revealed that the ancestral fungus initially parasitized pine and cypress fungi before shifting approximately 17.01 Mya to infect another plant originating in eastern Eurasia, subsequently extending its range into western North America, Central Asia, and eastern Europe[92]. Their subsequent work on Hymenochaetales evolution reconstructed that the most recent common ancestor of this order likely possessed crust-like, resupinate basidiomes and a simple, smooth to toothed hymenophore configuration. Their study also showed that this ancestor grew a saprotroph on both angiosperms and gymnosperms[18]. Meanwhile, ASR has been extensively applied to investigate host specificity, pathogenic mechanisms, and genomic evolution in plant pathogenic basidiomycetes. Aime et al. conducted ASR on rust fungi (order Pucciniales), and proposed that the diversification of major lineages was closely linked to shifts in host plant groups. For example, plant diversification in the Poaceae and Fabaceae families drives adaptive radiation, and there are genome evolution features such as transposon burst, horizontal gene transfer (HGT), and so on[93]. Kijpornyongpan et al. hypothesized that the common ancestor of the fungal taxa of the subphylum Ustilaginomycotina has the pathogenic properties of the smut fungi, and that the pathogenic ancestor may have carried a family of genes (e.g., secreted effector proteins, cell-wall degrading enzymes, and genes for the synthesis of secondary metabolites) that are involved in the infestation of plant hosts. The retention of these genes has been observed in certain extant pathogenic species, while they appear to be degraded or lost in non-pathogenic species. The role of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) or events of gene family expansion/contraction in the evolution of pathogenicity is a key area of research. The present studies provide ample evidence to demonstrate the importance of ASR in the study of the evolution of fungi in the basidiomycetes species[94].

      In summary, the maximum likelihood method is the more commonly used approach in the reconstruction of the ancestry of morphological features of fungal species. This method is particularly suitable for taxa with high morphological diversity or significant taxonomic controversies, and can be applied to analyze both micro- and macro-morphological characteristics. For example, the ancestral reproductive structure of Pezizomycotina and its infrageneric taxa in the Ascomycota is the exposed hymenium (apothecium)[15], and a morphologically based taxonomic reconstruction of the Agaricomycetes in the Basidiomycota[16]. Conversely, the Bayesian method (e.g., BBM in RASP) is more prevalent in the context of ancestral distribution reconstruction of fungal species. This approach is particularly suitable for taxa with well-defined ecological functions or complex distribution patterns, focusing on the occurrence of events such as the origin or historical spread of fungal species. Examples of taxa that are particularly well-suited to this approach include lichenized fungi in the Ascomycota[88,89], and Agaricomycetes in the Basidiomycota[92].

    • Recent advancements in molecular techniques and evolutionary biology have significantly propelled ASR research in fungal systematics. However, achieving a comprehensive understanding of fungal evolutionary history and the timing of critical evolutionary events necessitates integrating multidisciplinary approaches. Key limitations include: (1) restricted species sampling in fungal phylogenetics, undermining the representativeness and accuracy of phylogenetic trees; (2) absence of dedicated ASR models specifically tailored for fungal taxa, with current frameworks predominantly adapted from animal or plant studies; (3) oversimplified assumptions in reconstructing fungal biogeography, apart from the limited sample size involved, often neglecting ecological complexity (e.g., climate shifts, tectonic movements, host plant distributions).

      The main problems and challenges are summarized as follows: (1) Data quality issues: morphological or molecular data for many species are missing or incomplete, leading to inaccurate reconstruction results; samples of extant species may not represent the true diversity of ancestry, especially for extinct species. (2) Limitations of model selection: a significant number of reconstruction methods rely on simplified evolutionary models (e.g., Markov models), which may fail to capture complex evolutionary processes. The model that is selected may not be suitable for the evolutionary pattern of a particular trait (e.g., continuous traits vs discrete traits). The estimation of model parameters (e.g., evolutionary rate) may be subject to error, which may affect the reconstruction results. (3) A failure to consider environmental and ecological factors: numerous methodologies for reconstruction neglect the repercussions of environmental transformation on trait evolution. Interactions between species (e.g., predation, competition) have the potential to influence trait evolution; however, these factors are typically excluded from the model.

    • Fungi are a group of organisms that are widespread throughout the Earth, with diverse morphological characteristics, and ecological functions. They play an important role in maintaining ecosystem balance and biodiversity[95,96]. Nevertheless, due to the extensive variety of fungi and the similarity of morphological features among species of the same taxonomic category, traditional classification systems have certain limitations in the context of fungal taxonomic studies. The introduction of ASR provides a novel approach and valuable method for fungal taxonomic studies. By inferring ancestral traits, ASR helps to unravel the evolutionary history of fungi and their taxonomic characteristics, revealing the origin and evolution of key features such as morphological characteristics, metabolic pathways[16,97]. ASR has enhanced understanding of the evolution of fungal ecological functions, such as the origin of the lignin-degrading capacity of fungal species, and provides a theoretical basis for understanding fungal ecological roles[90]; it can also be used to study the co-evolutionary relationship between fungi and their hosts, revealing changes in the host range of pathogenic fungi and the evolution of virulence factors as well as the origins of their pathogenicity mechanisms, and transmission pathways[98]. Furthermore, ASR can be used to help infer the geographic origin and dispersal pathways of fungi and reveal their biogeographic distribution patterns and historical dispersal events[54,92]. It can also be used to calibrate phylogenetic trees, enabling more accurate estimates of divergence times in conjunction with fossil records or molecular clock analyses[99,100].

    • As evolutionary biology advances, ASR is expected to play an increasingly prominent and in-depth role in fungal taxonomy. Integrating multi-omics data, innovative algorithms, and ecological functional inference will enable the precise resolution of key evolutionary innovations. Future breakthroughs will depend on the development of fungal-specific algorithms and the construction of global evolutionary databases, facilitating cross-boundary interaction with host evolutionary histories. These advances will help bridge scales from genes to ecosystems, further advancing the application in fungal taxonomy.

      This review summarizes current ASR methodologies and applications in mycology, highlighting its potential to shift fungal evolutionary research from descriptive event cataloging toward mechanism-driven analysis, thereby refining classification systems and deepening our understanding of fungal evolution.

      • We are grateful to the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 32170024), the Yunnan Province Ten Thousand Plan of Youth Top Talent Project (Grant No. YNWR-QNBJ-2018-267), and the Yunnan Fundamental Research Projects (Grant No. 202401AT070017) for the financial support for the present study.

      • The authors confirm their contributions to the paper as follows: study conception and design: Wang YT, Wu HX; data collection: Wang YT; analysis and interpretation of results: Wang YT, Wu HX; draft manuscript preparation: Wang YT, Wu HX. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

      • All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      • Copyright: © 2025 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (2)  Table (2) References (100)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Wang YT, Wu HX, Chomnunti P. 2025. The role of ancestral state reconstruction in mycological researches: methods and insights. Studies in Fungi 10: e022 doi: 10.48130/sif-0025-0023
    Wang YT, Wu HX, Chomnunti P. 2025. The role of ancestral state reconstruction in mycological researches: methods and insights. Studies in Fungi 10: e022 doi: 10.48130/sif-0025-0023

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return