New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

For Lichens, 3's Not a Crowd

Biologists have identified a third species—a yeast—in some lichens, shaking up what's always been known as a two-party system. Christopher Intagliata reports.

Photo by Tim Wheeler, timwheelerphotography.com.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Lichens. They’re probably the most common example of two organisms living in a symbiotic relationship. There’s a fungus and a photosynthesizing partner, like algae. It's a bond that was born, as they say, when "Alice Algae," took a "lichen" to "Freddie Fungus."

But that simple description covered up a larger mystery: how could two different lichen species combine the same building blocks—same fungus, same algae—“and yet they look very different, have very different chemistry, and some of them even have distinctly different ecology."

Toby Spribille, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Montana, and the University of Graz in Austria. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


He and his colleagues studied two lichen species that fit that bill. Same underlying parts, different color and chemistry. They ground the lichens up, and then analyzed their RNA. What they expected to find was two genomes: one fungus, one alga. "And what we found was, at the end of a lot of analysis, what we had was three genomes, not two."

The third genome was from a type of yeast. And the more yeast was present, the more yellowish—and more toxic—the lichen was. The study appears in the journal Science. [Toby Spribille et al., Basidiomycete yeasts in the cortex of ascomycete macrolichens]

But how could scientists spend so many years studying these lichens—and still miss this crucial third species? Spribille says it could have been the type of genetic sequencing. Previous studies relied on DNA barcodes, which only sample some of the genome, to identify the underlying fungus and alga. Sort of like identifying the occupants of a completely dark room by shouting out a few names and seeing who answers. 

What Spribille did, instead, was just turn all the lights on, with whole genome sequencing, revealing the identity of all occupants, and in doing so, "we eliminated anything that required going in and calling out somebody's name so to speak." 

As for whether some lichens might have four, five species? "I certainly wouldn't rule it out at this point." Because this study indicates lichens are truly more than the sum of their parts. Including, of course, the parts we still don't know about.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe