The DOI matches its Crossref record.
RFLP Maps Based on a Common Set of Clones Reveal Modes of Chromosomal Evolution in Potato and Tomato.
Abstract
Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) are members of the Solanaceae (nightshade family) and have the same basic chromosome number (x = 12). However, they cannot be cross-hybridized and, until now, it was unknown how conserved the gene order might be between these two species. We report herein the construction of a genetic linkage map of potato chromosomes based on genomic and cDNA clones from tomato. The potato map was drawn from segregation data derived from the interspecific cross S. phureja X (S. tuberosum X S. chacoense) (2n = 2x = 24), and consists of 135 markers defining 12 distinct linkage groups. Nearly all of the tomato probes tested hybridized to potato DNA, and in most cases, the copy number of the employed clones was the same in both species. Furthermore, all clones mapped to the same linkage group in both species. For nine chromosomes, the order of loci appears to be identical in the two species, while for the other three, intrachromosomal rearrangements are apparent, all of which appear to be paracentric inversions with one breakpoint at or near the centromere. These results are consistent with cytogenetic theory, previously untested in plants, which predicts that paracentric inversions will have the least negative effect on fitness and thus be the most likely form of chromosomal rearrangements to survive through evolutionary time. Linkage maps based on a common set of restriction fragment length polymorphism markers provide a basis for uniting the previously separate disciplines of tomato and potato genetics. Using these maps, it may now be possible to test theories about homologies or orthologies of other genes, including those coding for disease resistance and stress tolerances.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Phylogenetic Incongruence: Window into Genome History and Molecular Evolution
Wendel, J. F., & Doyle, J. J. (1998) · Molecular Systematics of Plants II · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-5419-6_10 · Cited by 649
Crops that feed the world 8: Potato: are the trends of increased global production sustainable?
Birch, P. R. J., Bryan, G., Fenton, B., Gilroy, E. M., Hein, I., Jones, J. T., Prashar, A., Taylor, M. A., Torrance, L., & Toth, I. K. (2012) · Food Security · doi:10.1007/s12571-012-0220-1 · Cited by 441
Barker, D. G., Bianchi, S., Blondon, F., Dattée, Y., Duc, G., Essad, S., Flament, P., Gallusci, P., Génier, G., Guy, P., et al. (1990) · Plant Molecular Biology Reporter · doi:10.1007/bf02668879 · Cited by 398
Conservation of Genome Structure Between Rice and Wheat
Kurata, N., Moore, G., Nagamura, Y., Foote, T., Yano, M., Minobe, Y., & Gale, M. (1994) · Bio/Technology · doi:10.1038/nbt0394-276 · Cited by 288
Integrated syntenic and phylogenomic analyses reveal an ancient genome duplication in monocots
Jiao, Y., Li, J., Tang, H., & Paterson, A. H. (2014) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1105/tpc.114.127597 · Cited by 267
Metadata
- Authors
- Bonierbale, M. W., Plaisted, R. L., & Tanksley, S. D.
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1988-12-01
- Volume
- 120
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1095-1103
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- OpenAlex
- W2105680039
- Cited by
- 802
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 28.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: RFLP Maps Based on a Common Set of Clones Reveal Modes of Chromosomal Evolution in Potato and Tomato. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/genetics/120.4.1095
- The paper
- Bonierbale, M. W., Plaisted, R. L., & Tanksley, S. D. (1988). RFLP Maps Based on a Common Set of Clones Reveal Modes of Chromosomal Evolution in Potato and Tomato. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/120.4.1095
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.