Cited by 506

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

DNA sequence evidence for the segmental allotetraploid origin of maize

Gaut, Brandon S., Doebley, John F.·1997·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

It has long been suspected that maize is the product of an historical tetraploid event. Several observations support this possibility, including the fact that the maize genome contains duplicated chromosomal segments with colinear gene arrangements. Some of the genes from these duplicated segments have been sequenced. In this study, we examine the pattern of sequence divergence among 14 pairs of duplicated genes. We compare the pattern of divergence to patterns predicted by four models of the evolution of the maize genome—autotetraploidy, genomic allotetraploidy, segmental allotetraploidy, and multiple segmental duplications. Our analyses indicate that coalescent times for duplicated sequences fall into two distinct groups, corresponding to roughly 20.5 and 11.4 million years. This observation strongly discounts the possibility that the maize genome is the product of a genomic allotetraploid event, and it is also difficult to reconcile with either autotetraploidy or multiple independent segmental duplications. However, the presence of two (and only two) coalescent times is predicted by the segmental allotetraploid model. If the maize genome is the product of a segmental allotetraploid event, as these data suggest, then its two diploid progenitors diverged roughly 20.5 million years ago (Mya), and the allotetraploid event probably occurred approximately 11.4 Mya. Comparison of maize and sorghum sequences suggests that one of the two ancestral diploids shares a more recent common ancestor with sorghum than it does with the other ancestral diploid.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.94.13.6809

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Maize is an 11.4 M ya paleo-polyploid, allo-tetraploid switchgrass formed 4-6 M ya, and allo-hexaploid bread wheat arose about 8 k ya.

    “For example, maize is an 11.4 M ya paleo-polyploid (Gaut and Doebley, 1997), allo-tetraploid switchgrass formed 4–6 M ya (Lovell et al., 2021b), and allo-hexaploid bread wheat arose about 8 k ya (Haas et al., 2019).”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. R P Celarier Rhodora 58, 135–143 (1956).
  2. E Anderson Chron Bot 9, 88–92 (1945).
  3. E D Garber Univ Calif Pub Bot 23, 283–362 (1950).
  4. 10.1086/281658 · DOI
  5. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a110839 · DOI
  6. 10.1093/genetics/118.2.353 · DOI
  7. M M Rhoades Corn and Corn Improvement, ed G F Sprague (Academic, New York), pp. 123–219 (1955).
  8. 10.1093/genetics/132.4.1119 · DOI
  9. G L Stebbins Chromosomal Evolution in Higher Plants (Arnold, London, 1971).
  10. 10.1093/genetics/141.2.785 · DOI
  11. 10.1073/pnas.93.21.11735 · DOI
  12. 10.1073/pnas.92.8.3338 · DOI
  13. 10.1073/pnas.88.8.3377 · DOI
  14. M Nei, T Gojobori Mol Biol Evol 3, 418–426 (1986).
  15. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025549 · DOI
  16. S V Muse, B S Gaut Mol Biol Evol 11, 715–724 (1994).
  17. R R Sokal, F J Rholf Biometry (Freeman, New York, 1995).
  18. 10.1093/genetics/142.3.1021 · DOI
  19. 10.1093/genetics/138.3.849 · DOI
  20. 10.1073/pnas.93.19.10274 · DOI
  21. 10.1007/BF02857419 · DOI
  22. 10.1073/pnas.86.16.6201 · DOI
  23. W-H Li, D Graur Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution (Sinauer, Sunderland, MA), pp. 69 (1991).
  24. 10.1093/genetics/146.1.393 · DOI
  25. 10.1073/pnas.71.7.2848 · DOI
  26. W-H Li Population Genetics and Molecular Evolution, eds T Ohta, K Aoki (Japan Scientific Societies Press, Tokyo), pp. 333–352 (1985).
  27. 10.1073/pnas.90.11.5095 · DOI
  28. 10.1073/pnas.88.14.5974 · DOI
  29. 10.1007/BF02100204 · DOI
  30. 10.1073/pnas.92.17.7719 · DOI
  31. 10.1080/07352689309701903 · DOI
  32. 10.7312/steb94536 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Gaut, B. S., & Doebley, J. F.
Affiliations
Department of Plant Sciences and Center for Theoretical and Applied Genetics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903; and Department of Plant Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
1997-06-24
Volume
94
Issue
13
Pages
6809-6814
ISSN
  • 0027-8424
  • 1091-6490
Cited by
506
References
0
Language
en

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