Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 306

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 116 of the 116 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nuclear DNA amounts in angiosperms: targets, trends and tomorrow

Open access
Bennett, M. D., Leitch, I. J.·2011·Annals of Botany

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The amount of DNA in an unreplicated gametic chromosome complement is known as the C-value and is a key biodiversity character of fundamental significance with many practical and predictive uses. Since 1976, Bennett and colleagues have assembled eight compilations of angiosperm C-values for reference purposes and subsequently these have been pooled into the Angiosperm DNA C-values Database (http://data.kew.org/cvalues/). Since the last compilation was published in 2005, a large amount of data on angiosperm genome size has been published. It is therefore timely to bring these data together into a ninth compilation of DNA amounts. Scope The present work lists DNA C-values for 2221 species from 151 original sources (including first values for 1860 species not listed in previous compilations). Combining these data with those published previously shows that C-values are now available for 6287 angiosperm species. KEY FINDINGS: Analysis of the dataset, which is by far the largest of the nine compilations published since 1976, shows that angiosperm C-values are now being generated at the highest rate since the first genome sizes were estimated in the 1950s. The compilation includes new record holders for the smallest (1C = 0·0648 pg in Genlisea margaretae) and largest (1C = 152·23 pg in Paris japonica) genome sizes so far reported, extending the range encountered in angiosperms to nearly 2400-fold. A review of progress in meeting targets set at the Plant Genome Size meetings shows that although representation for genera, geographical regions and some plant life forms (e.g. island floras and parasitic plants) has improved, progress to increase familial representation is still slow. In terms of technique it is now clear that flow cytometry is soon likely to become the only method available for plant genome size estimations. Fortunately, this has been accompanied by numerous careful studies to improve the quality of data generated using this technique (e.g. design of new buffers, increased awareness and understanding of problems caused by cytosolic inhibitors). It is also clear that although the speed of DNA sequencing continues to rise dramatically with the advent of next-generation and third-generation sequencing technologies, 'complete genome sequencing' projects are still unable to generate accurate plant genome size estimates.

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 · 10.1093/aob/mcq258

Cites

116 of 116 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 116 references

Cited by

See all 306

Metadata

Authors
Bennett, M. D., & Leitch, I. J.
Venue
Annals of Botany
Published
2011-01-21
Volume
107
Issue
3
Pages
467-590
ISSN
  • 0305-7364 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-8290
OpenAlex
W2116757177
Cited by
306
References
116
FWCI
34.15
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: Nuclear DNA amounts in angiosperms: targets, trends and tomorrow. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/aob/mcq258
The paper
Bennett, M. D., & Leitch, I. J. (2011). Nuclear DNA amounts in angiosperms: targets, trends and tomorrow. Annals of Botany. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcq258

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.