Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,218

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Analysis of 81 genes from 64 plastid genomes resolves relationships in angiosperms and identifies genome-scale evolutionary patterns

Open access
Jansen, Robert K., Cai, Zhengqiu, Raubeson, Linda A., Daniell, Henry, dePamphilis, Claude W., Leebens-Mack, James, Müller, Kai F., Guisinger-Bellian, Mary, Haberle, Rosemarie C., Hansen, Anne K., Chumley, Timothy W., Lee, Seung-Bum, Peery, Rhiannon, McNeal, Joel R., Kuehl, Jennifer V., Boore, Jeffrey L.·2007·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Angiosperms are the largest and most successful clade of land plants with >250,000 species distributed in nearly every terrestrial habitat. Many phylogenetic studies have been based on DNA sequences of one to several genes, but, despite decades of intensive efforts, relationships among early diverging lineages and several of the major clades remain either incompletely resolved or weakly supported. We performed phylogenetic analyses of 81 plastid genes in 64 sequenced genomes, including 13 new genomes, to estimate relationships among the major angiosperm clades, and the resulting trees are used to examine the evolution of gene and intron content. Phylogenetic trees from multiple methods, including model-based approaches, provide strong support for the position of Amborella as the earliest diverging lineage of flowering plants, followed by Nymphaeales and Austrobaileyales. The plastid genome trees also provide strong support for a sister relationship between eudicots and monocots, and this group is sister to a clade that includes Chloranthales and magnoliids. Resolution of relationships among the major clades of angiosperms provides the necessary framework for addressing numerous evolutionary questions regarding the rapid diversification of angiosperms. Gene and intron content are highly conserved among the early diverging angiosperms and basal eudicots, but 62 independent gene and intron losses are limited to the more derived monocot and eudicot clades. Moreover, a lineage-specific correlation was detected between rates of nucleotide substitutions, indels, and genomic rearrangements.

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.0709121104

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,218

Metadata

Authors
Jansen, R. K., Cai, Z., Raubeson, L. A., Daniell, H., dePamphilis, C. W., Leebens-Mack, J., Müller, K. F., Guisinger-Bellian, M., Haberle, R. C., Hansen, A. K., Chumley, T. W., Lee, S.-B., Peery, R., McNeal, J. R., Kuehl, J. V., & Boore, J. L.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2007-12-04
Volume
104
Issue
49
Pages
19369-19374
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2127735379
Cited by
1,218
References
2
FWCI
38.63
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: Analysis of 81 genes from 64 plastid genomes resolves relationships in angiosperms and identifies genome-scale evolutionary patterns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0709121104
The paper
Jansen, R. K., Cai, Z., Raubeson, L. A., Daniell, H., dePamphilis, C. W., Leebens-Mack, J., Müller, K. F., Guisinger-Bellian, M., Haberle, R. C., Hansen, A. K., Chumley, T. W., Lee, S.-B., Peery, R., McNeal, J. R., Kuehl, J. V., & Boore, J. L. (2007). Analysis of 81 genes from 64 plastid genomes resolves relationships in angiosperms and identifies genome-scale evolutionary patterns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0709121104

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.