Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 960

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative population genomics of maize domestication and improvement

Open access
Hufford, Matthew B, Xu, Xun, van Heerwaarden, Joost, Pyhäjärvi, Tanja, Chia, Jer-Ming, Cartwright, Reed A, Elshire, Robert J, Glaubitz, Jeffrey C, Guill, Kate E, Kaeppler, Shawn M, Lai, Jinsheng, Morrell, Peter L, Shannon, Laura M, Song, Chi, Springer, Nathan M, Swanson-Wagner, Ruth A, Tiffin, Peter, Wang, Jun, Zhang, Gengyun, Doebley, John, McMullen, Michael D, Ware, Doreen, Buckler, Edward S, Yang, Shuang, Ross-Ibarra, Jeffrey·2012·Nature Genetics

Abstract

Domestication and plant breeding are ongoing 10,000-year-old evolutionary experiments that have radically altered wild species to meet human needs. Maize has undergone a particularly striking transformation. Researchers have sought for decades to identify the genes underlying maize evolution, but these efforts have been limited in scope. Here, we report a comprehensive assessment of the evolution of modern maize based on the genome-wide resequencing of 75 wild, landrace and improved maize lines. We find evidence of recovery of diversity after domestication, likely introgression from wild relatives, and evidence for stronger selection during domestication than improvement. We identify a number of genes with stronger signals of selection than those previously shown to underlie major morphological changes. Finally, through transcriptome-wide analysis of gene expression, we find evidence both consistent with removal of cis-acting variation during maize domestication and improvement and suggestive of modern breeding having increased dominance in expression while targeting highly expressed genes.

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 · 10.1038/ng.2309

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 960

Metadata

Authors
Hufford, M. B., Xu, X., van Heerwaarden, J., Pyhäjärvi, T., Chia, J.-M., Cartwright, R. A., Elshire, R. J., Glaubitz, J. C., Guill, K. E., Kaeppler, S. M., Lai, J., Morrell, P. L., Shannon, L. M., Song, C., Springer, N. M., Swanson-Wagner, R. A., Tiffin, P., Wang, J., Zhang, G., Doebley, J., McMullen, M. D., Ware, D., Buckler, E. S., Yang, S., & Ross-Ibarra, J.
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2012-06-03
Volume
44
Issue
7
Pages
808-811
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W2055966372
Cited by
960
References
3
FWCI
35.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative population genomics of maize domestication and improvement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ng.2309
The paper
Hufford, M. B., Xu, X., van Heerwaarden, J., Pyhäjärvi, T., Chia, J.-M., Cartwright, R. A., Elshire, R. J., Glaubitz, J. C., Guill, K. E., Kaeppler, S. M., Lai, J., Morrell, P. L., Shannon, L. M., Song, C., Springer, N. M., Swanson-Wagner, R. A., Tiffin, P., Wang, J., Zhang, G., . . . Ross-Ibarra, J. (2012). Comparative population genomics of maize domestication and improvement. Nature Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2309

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.