Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 679

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Plants with double genomes might have had a better chance to survive the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

Open access
Fawcett, Jeffrey A., Maere, Steven, Van de Peer, Yves·2009·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Most flowering plants have been shown to be ancient polyploids that have undergone one or more whole genome duplications early in their evolution. Furthermore, many different plant lineages seem to have experienced an additional, more recent genome duplication. Starting from paralogous genes lying in duplicated segments or identified in large expressed sequence tag collections, we dated these youngest duplication events through penalized likelihood phylogenetic tree inference. We show that a majority of these independent genome duplications are clustered in time and seem to coincide with the Cretaceous–Tertiary (KT) boundary. The KT extinction event is the most recent mass extinction caused by one or more catastrophic events such as a massive asteroid impact and/or increased volcanic activity. These events are believed to have generated global wildfires and dust clouds that cut off sunlight during long periods of time resulting in the extinction of ≈60% of plant species, as well as a majority of animals, including dinosaurs. Recent studies suggest that polyploid species can have a higher adaptability and increased tolerance to different environmental conditions. We propose that polyploidization may have contributed to the survival and propagation of several plant lineages during or following the KT extinction event. Due to advantages such as altered gene expression leading to hybrid vigor and an increased set of genes and alleles available for selection, polyploid plants might have been better able to adapt to the drastically changed environment 65 million years ago.

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.0900906106

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 679

Metadata

Authors
Fawcett, J. A., Maere, S., & Van de Peer, Y.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2009-04-07
Volume
106
Issue
14
Pages
5737-5742
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2152650625
Cited by
679
References
9
FWCI
49.12
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: Plants with double genomes might have had a better chance to survive the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0900906106
The paper
Fawcett, J. A., Maere, S., & Van de Peer, Y. (2009). Plants with double genomes might have had a better chance to survive the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900906106

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.