Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 331

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Legume genome evolution viewed through the Medicago truncatula and Lotus japonicus genomes

Open access
Cannon, Steven B., Sterck, Lieven, Rombauts, Stephane, Sato, Shusei, Cheung, Foo, Gouzy, Jérôme, Wang, Xiaohong, Mudge, Joann, Vasdewani, Jayprakash, Schiex, Thomas, Spannagl, Manuel, Monaghan, Erin, Nicholson, Christine, Humphray, Sean J., Schoof, Heiko, Mayer, Klaus F. X., Rogers, Jane, Quétier, Francis, Oldroyd, Giles E., Debellé, Frédéric, Cook, Douglas R., Retzel, Ernest F., Roe, Bruce A., Town, Christopher D., Tabata, Satoshi, Van de Peer, Yves, Young, Nevin D.·2006·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Genome sequencing of the model legumes, Medicago truncatula and Lotus japonicus , provides an opportunity for large-scale sequence-based comparison of two genomes in the same plant family. Here we report synteny comparisons between these species, including details about chromosome relationships, large-scale synteny blocks, microsynteny within blocks, and genome regions lacking clear correspondence. The Lotus and Medicago genomes share a minimum of 10 large-scale synteny blocks, each with substantial collinearity and frequently extending the length of whole chromosome arms. The proportion of genes syntenic and collinear within each synteny block is relatively homogeneous. Medicago–Lotus comparisons also indicate similar and largely homogeneous gene densities, although gene-containing regions in Mt occupy 20–30% more space than Lj counterparts, primarily because of larger numbers of Mt retrotransposons. Because the interpretation of genome comparisons is complicated by large-scale genome duplications, we describe synteny, synonymous substitutions and phylogenetic analyses to identify and date a probable whole-genome duplication event. There is no direct evidence for any recent large-scale genome duplication in either Medicago or Lotus but instead a duplication predating speciation. Phylogenetic comparisons place this duplication within the Rosid I clade, clearly after the split between legumes and Salicaceae (poplar).

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.0603228103

Cites

38 of 38 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 38 references

Cited by

See all 331

Metadata

Authors
Cannon, S. B., Sterck, L., Rombauts, S., Sato, S., Cheung, F., Gouzy, J., Wang, X., Mudge, J., Vasdewani, J., Schiex, T., Spannagl, M., Monaghan, E., Nicholson, C., Humphray, S. J., Schoof, H., Mayer, K. F. X., Rogers, J., Quétier, F., Oldroyd, G. E., Debellé, F., Cook, D. R., Retzel, E. F., Roe, B. A., Town, C. D., Tabata, S., Van de Peer, Y., & Young, N. D.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2006-10-03
Volume
103
Issue
40
Pages
14959-14964
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2159770366
Cited by
331
References
38
FWCI
30.98
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: Legume genome evolution viewed through the Medicago truncatula and Lotus japonicus genomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0603228103
The paper
Cannon, S. B., Sterck, L., Rombauts, S., Sato, S., Cheung, F., Gouzy, J., Wang, X., Mudge, J., Vasdewani, J., Schiex, T., Spannagl, M., Monaghan, E., Nicholson, C., Humphray, S. J., Schoof, H., Mayer, K. F. X., Rogers, J., Quétier, F., Oldroyd, G. E., . . . Young, N. D. (2006). Legume genome evolution viewed through the Medicago truncatula and Lotus japonicus genomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0603228103

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.