These authors contributed equally to this work. SUMMARYThe chloroplast NAD(P)H dehydrogenase-like (NDH) complex consists of about 30 subunits from both the nuclear and chloroplast genomes and is ubiquitous across most land plants. In some orchids, such as Phalaenopsis equestris, Dendrobium officinale and Dendrobium catenatum, most of the 11 chloroplast genomeencoded ndh genes (cp-ndh) have been lost. Here we investigated whether functional cp-ndh genes have been completely lost in these orchids or whether they have been transferred and retained in the nuclear genome. Further, we assessed whether both cp-ndh genes and nucleus-encoded NDH-related genes can be lost, resulting in the absence of the NDH complex. Comparative analyses of the genome of Apostasia odorata, an orchid species with a complete complement of cp-ndh genes which represents the sister lineage to all other orchids, and three published orchid genome sequences for P. equestris, D. officinale and D. catenatum, which are all missing cp-ndh genes, indicated that copies of cp-ndh genes are not present in any of these four nuclear genomes. This observation suggests that the NDH complex is not necessary for some plants. Comparative genomic/transcriptomic analyses of currently available plastid genome sequences and nuclear transcriptome data showed that 47 out of 660 photoautotrophic plants and all the heterotrophic plants are missing plastid-encoded cp-ndh genes and exhibit no evidence for maintenance of a functional NDH complex. Our data indicate that the NDH complex can be lost in photoautotrophic plant species. Further, the loss of the NDH complex may increase the probability of transition from a photoautotrophic to a heterotrophic life history.

BackgroundSubtribe Orchidinae (Orchidaceae, Orchidoideae) are a nearly cosmopolitan taxon of terrestrial orchids, comprising about 1800 species in 47 to 60 genera. Although much progress has been made in recent years of phylogenetics of Orchidinae, considerable problems remain to be addressed. Based on molecular phylogenetics, we attempt to illustrate the phylogenetic relationships and discuss generic delimitation within Orchidinae. Seven DNA markers (five plastid and two nuclear), a broad sampling of Orchidinae (400 species in 52 genera) and three methods of phylogenetic analysis (maximum likelihood, maximum parsimony and Bayesian inference) were used.ResultsOrchidinae s.l. are monophyletic. Satyrium is sister to the rest of Orchidinae s.l. Brachycorythis and Schizochilus are successive sister to Asian-European Orchidinae s.s. Sirindhornia and Shizhenia are successive sister to clade formed by Tsaiorchis-Hemipilia-Ponerorchis alliance. Stenoglottis is sister to the Habenaria-Herminium-Peristylus alliance. Habenaria, currently the largest genus in Orchidinae, is polyphyletic and split into two distant clades: one Asian-Australian and the other African–American–Asian. Diplomeris is sister to Herminium s.l. plus Asian-Australian Habenaria.ConclusionsWe propose to recognize five genera in the Ponerorchis alliance: Hemipilia, Ponerorchis s.l., Sirindhornia, Shizhenia and Tsaiorchis. Splitting Habenaria into two genera based on morphological characters and geographical distribution may be the least disruptive approach, and it is reasonable to keep Satyrium in Orchidinae.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12870-017-1160-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundIt is estimated that floral deception has evolved in at least 7500 species of angiosperms, of which two thirds are orchids. Epipactis veratrifolia (Orchidaceae) is a model system of aphid mimicry as aphidophagous hoverflies lay eggs on false brood sites on their flowers. To understand the evolutionary ecology of floral deception, we investigated the pollination biology of E. veratrifolia across 10 populations in the Eastern Himalayas. We reconstructed the phylogeny of Epipactis and mapped the known pollination systems of previously studied species onto the tree.ResultsSome inflorescences of E. veratrifolia were so infested with aphids while they were still in bud that the some larvae of hoverflies developed to the third instar while flower buds opened. This indicated that adult female hoverflies were partly rewarded for oviposition. Although flowers failed to secrete nectar, they mimicked both alarm pheromones and aphid coloring of to attract female hoverflies as their exclusive pollinators. Phylogenetic mapping indicate that pollination by aphidophagous hoverflies is likely an ancestral condition in the genus Epipactis. We suggest that the biological interaction of aphid (prey), orchid (primary producer) and hoverfly (predator) may represent an intermediate stage between mutualism and deception in the evolution of pollination-by-deceit in E. veratrifolia.ConclusionsOur analyses indicate that this intermediate stage may be used as a model system to interpret the origin of oviposition (brood site) mimicry in Epipactis. We propose the hypothesis that some deceptive pollination systems evolved directly from earlier (partly) mutualistic systems that maintained the fidelity of the original pollinator(s) even though rewards (nectar/ brood site) were lost.