Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 207

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Were vertebrates octoploid?

Open access
Furlong, Rebecca F., Holland, Peter W. H.·2002·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

It has long been suggested that gene and genome duplication play important roles in the evolution of organismal complexity. For example, work by Ohno proposed that two rounds of whole genome doubling (tetraploidy) occurred during the evolution of vertebrates: the extra genes permitting an increase in physiological and anatomical complexity. Several modifications of this ‘two tetraploidies’ hypothesis have been proposed, taking into account accumulating data, and there is wide acceptance of the basic scheme. In the past few years, however, several authors have raised doubts, citing lack of direct support or even evidence to the contrary. Here, we review the evidence for and against the occurrence of tetraploidies in early vertebrate evolution, and present a new compilation of molecular phylogenetic data for amphioxus. We argue that evidence in favour of tetraploidy, based primarily on genome and gene family analyses, is strong. Furthermore, we show that two observations used as evidence against genome duplication are in fact compatible with the hypothesis: but only if the genome doubling occurred by two closely spaced sequential rounds of autotetraploidy. We propose that early vertebrates passed through an autoautooctoploid phase in the evolution of their genomes.

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/rstb.2001.1035

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 207

Metadata

Authors
Furlong, R. F., & Holland, P. W. H.
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
2002-04-29
Volume
357
Issue
1420
Pages
531-544
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2134692197
Cited by
207
References
3
FWCI
24.94
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: Were vertebrates octoploid? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.2001.1035
The paper
Furlong, R. F., & Holland, P. W. H. (2002). Were vertebrates octoploid? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2001.1035

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.