Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 472

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Estimating genome conservation between crop and model legume species

Open access
Choi, Hong-Kyu, Mun, Jeong-Hwan, Kim, Dong-Jin, Zhu, Hongyan, Baek, Jong-Min, Mudge, Joanne, Roe, Bruce, Ellis, Noel, Doyle, Jeff, Kiss, Gyorgy B., Young, Nevin D., Cook, Douglas R.·2004·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0402251101
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Legumes are simultaneously one of the largest families of crop plants and a cornerstone in the biological nitrogen cycle. We combined molecular and phylogenetic analyses to evaluate genome conservation both within and between the two major clades of crop legumes. Genetic mapping of orthologous genes identifies broad conservation of genome macrostructure, especially within the galegoid legumes, while also highlighting inferred chromosomal rearrangements that may underlie the variation in chromosome number between these species. As a complement to comparative genetic mapping, we compared sequenced regions of the model legume Medicago truncatula with those of the diploid Lotus japonicus and the polyploid Glycine max . High conservation was observed between the genomes of M. truncatula and L. japonicus , whereas lower levels of conservation were evident between M. truncatula and G. max . In all cases, conserved genome microstructure was punctuated by significant structural divergence, including frequent insertion/deletion of individual genes or groups of genes and lineage-specific expansion/contraction of gene families. These results suggest that comparative mapping may have considerable utility for basic and applied research in the legumes, although its predictive value is likely to be tempered by phylogenetic distance and genome duplication.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.0402251101

Cites

22 of 22 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 22 references

Cited by

See all 472

Metadata

Authors
Choi, H.-K., Mun, J.-H., Kim, D.-J., Zhu, H., Baek, J.-M., Mudge, J., Roe, B., Ellis, N., Doyle, J., Kiss, G. B., Young, N. D., & Cook, D. R.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2004-10-15
Volume
101
Issue
43
Pages
15289-15294
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0402251101
OpenAlex
W2139068863
Cited by
472
References
22
FWCI
37.11
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: Estimating genome conservation between crop and model legume species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0402251101
The paper
Choi, H.-K., Mun, J.-H., Kim, D.-J., Zhu, H., Baek, J.-M., Mudge, J., Roe, B., Ellis, N., Doyle, J., Kiss, G. B., Young, N. D., & Cook, D. R. (2004). Estimating genome conservation between crop and model legume species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0402251101

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.