Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 353

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative genomics of Physcomitrella patens gametophytic transcriptome and Arabidopsis thaliana: Implication for land plant evolution

Open access
Nishiyama, Tomoaki, Fujita, Tomomichi, Shin-I, Tadasu, Seki, Motoaki, Nishide, Hiroyo, Uchiyama, Ikuo, Kamiya, Asako, Carninci, Piero, Hayashizaki, Yoshihide, Shinozaki, Kazuo, Kohara, Yuji, Hasebe, Mitsuyasu·2003·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The mosses and flowering plants diverged >400 million years ago. The mosses have haploid-dominant life cycles, whereas the flowering plants are diploid-dominant. The common ancestors of land plants have been inferred to be haploid-dominant, suggesting that genes used in the diploid body of flowering plants were recruited from the genes used in the haploid body of the ancestors during the evolution of land plants. To assess this evolutionary hypothesis, we constructed an EST library of the moss Physcomitrella patens, and compared the moss transcriptome to the genome of Arabidopsis thaliana. We constructed full-length enriched cDNA libraries from auxin-treated, cytokinin-treated, and untreated gametophytes of P. patens, and sequenced both ends of >40,000 clones. These data, together with the mRNA sequences in the public databases, were assembled into 15,883 putative transcripts. Sequence comparisons of A. thaliana and P. patens showed that at least 66% of the A. thaliana genes had homologues in P. patens. Comparison of the P. patens putative transcripts with all known proteins, revealed 9,907 putative transcripts with high levels of similarity to vascular plant genes, and 850 putative transcripts with high levels of similarity to other organisms. The haploid transcriptome of P. patens appears to be quite similar to the A. thaliana genome, supporting the evolutionary hypothesis. Our study also revealed that a number of genes are moss specific and were lost in the flowering plant lineage.

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.0932694100

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 353

Metadata

Authors
Nishiyama, T., Fujita, T., Shin-I, T., Seki, M., Nishide, H., Uchiyama, I., Kamiya, A., Carninci, P., Hayashizaki, Y., Shinozaki, K., Kohara, Y., & Hasebe, M.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2003-06-13
Volume
100
Issue
13
Pages
8007-8012
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1968782697
Cited by
353
References
4
FWCI
42.12
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: Comparative genomics of Physcomitrella patens gametophytic transcriptome and Arabidopsis thaliana: Implication for land plant evolution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0932694100
The paper
Nishiyama, T., Fujita, T., Shin-I, T., Seki, M., Nishide, H., Uchiyama, I., Kamiya, A., Carninci, P., Hayashizaki, Y., Shinozaki, K., Kohara, Y., & Hasebe, M. (2003). Comparative genomics of Physcomitrella patens gametophytic transcriptome and Arabidopsis thaliana: Implication for land plant evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0932694100

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.