CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 63

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A phylogenomic approach reveals a low somatic mutation rate in a long-lived plant

Orr, Adam J., Padovan, Amanda, Kainer, David, Külheim, Carsten, Bromham, Lindell, Bustos-Segura, Carlos, Foley, William, Haff, Tonya, Hsieh, Ji-Fan, Morales-Suarez, Alejandro, Cartwright, Reed A., Lanfear, Robert·2020·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
DOI 10.1098/rspb.2019.2364PMC PMC7126060

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Somatic mutations can have important effects on the life history, ecology, and evolution of plants, but the rate at which they accumulate is poorly understood and difficult to measure directly. Here, we develop a method to measure somatic mutations in individual plants and use it to estimate the somatic mutation rate in a large, long-lived, phenotypically mosaic Eucalyptus melliodora tree. Despite being 100 times larger than Arabidopsis, this tree has a per-generation mutation rate only ten times greater, which suggests that this species may have evolved mechanisms to reduce the mutation rate per unit of growth. This adds to a growing body of evidence that illuminates the correlated evolutionary shifts in mutation rate and life history in plants.

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 · 10.1098/rspb.2019.2364

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. The Eucalyptus melliodora individual sequenced in this study. The eight branch tips sampled are shown by numbered green circles with internal nodes of the tree shown as letters in blue circles. Circles with dashed outlines are from the far side of the tree. Pink lines trace the physical branches that connect the sampled tips. The herbivore-resistant branch comprises samples 1–3.
Figure 1. The Eucalyptus melliodora individual sequenced in this study. The eight branch tips sampled are shown by numbered green circles with internal nodes of the tree shown as letters in blue circles. Circles with dashed outlines are from the far side of the tree. Pink lines trace the physical branches that connect the sampled tips. The herbivore-resistant branch comprises samples 1–3.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Phylogenetic trees reconstructed from somatic mutations resemble the physical structure of the tree more closely than expected by chance. (a) The PD between the physical tree (figure 1) and all 10 395 possible phylogenetic trees of eight taxa is shown as a histogram. A tree with the same topology as the physical tree will have a PD of 0. The solid red line represents the boundary of the smallest 5% of the distribution of PDs, such that a tree with a PD lower than this line is more similar to the physical tree than expected by chance. All of the maximum-parsimony trees (dashed red lines) and the one maximum-likelihood tree (solid blue line) are more similar to the physical tree than expected by chance. (b) A side-by-side comparison of the physical tree (left, branch lengths in metres) and the maximum-likelihood tree (right, branch lengths in substitutions per site) inferred with the JC model. Letters on the nodes of the physical tree (left) correspond to the same letters of internal nodes in figure 1. Numbers on the maximum-likelihood tree (right) are bootstrap percentages. There is a single difference between the two trees: the inferred tree groups samples M8 and M5 together with low bootstrap support (44%), which is a grouping that does not occur in the physical tree.
Figure 2. Phylogenetic trees reconstructed from somatic mutations resemble the physical structure of the tree more closely than expected by chance. (a) The PD between the physical tree (figure 1) and all 10 395 possible phylogenetic trees of eight taxa is shown as a histogram. A tree with the same topology as the physical tree will have a PD of 0. The solid red line represents the boundary of the smallest 5% of the distribution of PDs, such that a tree with a PD lower than this line is more similar to the physical tree than expected by chance. All of the maximum-parsimony trees (dashed red lines) and the one maximum-likelihood tree (solid blue line) are more similar to the physical tree than expected by chance. (b) A side-by-side comparison of the physical tree (left, branch lengths in metres) and the maximum-likelihood tree (right, branch lengths in substitutions per site) inferred with the JC model. Letters on the nodes of the physical tree (left) correspond to the same letters of internal nodes in figure 1. Numbers on the maximum-likelihood tree (right) are bootstrap percentages. There is a single difference between the two trees: the inferred tree groups samples M8 and M5 together with low bootstrap support (44%), which is a grouping that does not occur in the physical tree.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. 10.1038/s41477-018-0172-3 · DOI
  2. 10.1038/s41477-017-0066-9 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1007/BF00347587 · DOI
  4. 10.1073/pnas.80.5.1387 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/0168-9525(85)90071-X · DOI
  6. 10.1038/320305a0 · DOI
  7. 10.1038/340389a0 · DOI
  8. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000454 · DOI
  9. 10.1146/annurev.es.26.110195.002231 · DOI
  10. 10.1038/ncomms2836 · DOI
  11. 10.1007/s10722-010-9534-z · DOI
  12. 10.1073/pnas.95.1.394 · DOI
  13. 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02280.x · DOI
  14. 10.1016/0025-326X(94)90393-X · DOI
  15. 10.1002/evl3.121 · DOI
  16. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000191 · DOI
  17. 10.1086/600100 · DOI
  18. 10.1038/hdy.2013.57 · DOI
  19. 10.1186/1471-2229-13-29 · DOI
  20. 10.1038/347434a0 · DOI
  21. 10.1111/nph.13150 · DOI
  22. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt468 · DOI
  23. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr509 · DOI
  24. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq706 · DOI
  25. Steel MA, 1993, Distributions of tree comparison metrics-some new results, Syst. Biol., 42, 126
  26. 10.1038/nmeth.2611 · DOI
  27. Martin M Patterson M Garg S Fischer SO Pisanti N Klau GW Schoenhuth A Marschall T. 2016 WhatsHap: fast and accurate read-based phasing. bioRxiv 085050. (doi:10.1101/085050) · DOI
  28. 10.1534/genetics.112.145078 · DOI
  29. 10.1007/s11295-012-0491-x · DOI
  30. 10.1101/gr.107524.110 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1111/nph.15887 · DOI
  32. 10.1534/genetics.113.158758 · DOI
  33. 10.1073/pnas.1609686113 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.067 · DOI
  35. 10.1071/9780643069701 · DOI
  36. 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005439 · DOI
  37. 10.1126/science.1180677 · DOI
  38. 10.1093/gbe/evu087 · DOI
  39. 10.7312/klek92068 · DOI
  40. 10.1038/hdy.2013.114 · DOI
  41. 10.1126/science.1163197 · DOI
  42. 10.1007/978-3-662-01662-6 · DOI
  43. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002355 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Orr, A. J., Padovan, A., Kainer, D., Külheim, C., Bromham, L., Bustos-Segura, C., Foley, W., Haff, T., Hsieh, J.-F., Morales-Suarez, A., Cartwright, R. A., & Lanfear, R.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Publisher
The Royal Society
Published
2020-03-11
Volume
287
Issue
1922
Pages
20192364
ISSN
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
DOI
10.1098/rspb.2019.2364
PMC
PMC7126060
Cited by
63
References
1
Language
en
Licence
royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/data-sharing-mining/ (tdm)
Funders
  • The Hermon Slade Foundation
  • Australian Research Council

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