The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparative genome mapping of Sorghum and maize.
Open accessAbstract
Linkage relationships were determined among 85 maize low copy number nuclear DNA probes and seven isozyme loci in an F2 population derived from a cross of Sorghum bicolor ssp. bicolor x S. bicolor ssp. arundinaceum. Thirteen linkage groups were defined, three more than the 10 chromosomes of sorghum. Use of maize DNA probes to produce the sorghum linkage map allowed us to make several inferences concerning processes involved in the evolutionary divergence of the maize and sorghum genomes. The results show that many linkage groups are conserved between these two genomes and that the amount of recombination in these conserved linkage groups is roughly equivalent in maize and sorghum. Estimates of the proportions of duplicated loci suggest that a larger proportion of the loci are duplicated in the maize genome than in the sorghum genome. This result concurs with a prior estimate that the nuclear DNA content of maize is three to four times greater than that of sorghum. The pattern of conserved linkages between maize and sorghum is such that most sorghum linkage groups are composed of loci that map to two maize chromosomes. This pattern is consistent with the hypothesized ancient polyploid origin of maize and sorghum. There are nine cases in which locus order within shared linkage groups is inverted in sorghum relative to maize. These may have arisen from either inversions or intrachromosomal translocations. We found no evidence for large interchromosomal translocations. Overall, the data suggest that the primary processes involved in divergence of the maize and sorghum genomes were duplications (either by polyploidy or segmental duplication) and inversions or intrachromosomal translocations.
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
Preservation of Duplicate Genes by Complementary, Degenerative Mutations
Force, A., Lynch, M., Pickett, F. B., Amores, A., Yan, Y.-L., & Postlethwait, J. (1999) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/151.4.1531 · Cited by 3,529
Genome evolution in polyploids
Wendel, J. F. (2000) · Plant Molecular Biology · doi:10.1023/a:1006392424384 · Cited by 1,600
Cereal Genome Evolution: Grasses, line up and form a circle
Moore, G., Devos, K. M., Wang, Z., & Gale, M. D. (1995) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/s0960-9822(95)00148-5 · Cited by 706
Comparative linkage maps of the rice and maize genomes.
Ahn, S., & Tanksley, S. D. (1993) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.90.17.7980 · Cited by 656
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Whitkus, R., Doebley, J., & Lee, M.
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1992-12-01
- Volume
- 132
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1119-1130
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- OpenAlex
- W2144646347
- Cited by
- 298
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 32.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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 genome mapping of Sorghum and maize. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/genetics/132.4.1119
- The paper
- Whitkus, R., Doebley, J., & Lee, M. (1992). Comparative genome mapping of Sorghum and maize. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/132.4.1119
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.