The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ancestral grass karyotype reconstruction unravels new mechanisms of genome shuffling as a source of plant evolution
Open accessAbstract
The comparison of the chromosome numbers of today's species with common reconstructed paleo-ancestors has led to intense speculation of how chromosomes have been rearranged over time in mammals. However, similar studies in plants with respect to genome evolution as well as molecular mechanisms leading to mosaic synteny blocks have been lacking due to relevant examples of evolutionary zooms from genomic sequences. Such studies require genomes of species that belong to the same family but are diverged to fall into different subfamilies. Our most important crops belong to the family of the grasses, where a number of genomes have now been sequenced. Based on detailed paleogenomics, using inference from n = 5–12 grass ancestral karyotypes (AGKs) in terms of gene content and order, we delineated sequence intervals comprising a complete set of junction break points of orthologous regions from rice, maize, sorghum, and Brachypodium genomes, representing three different subfamilies and different polyploidization events. By focusing on these sequence intervals, we could show that the chromosome number variation/reduction from the n = 12 common paleo-ancestor was driven by nonrandom centric double-strand break repair events. It appeared that the centromeric/telomeric illegitimate recombination between nonhomologous chromosomes led to nested chromosome fusions (NCFs) and synteny break points (SBPs). When intervals comprising NCFs were compared in their structure, we concluded that SBPs (1) were meiotic recombination hotspots, (2) corresponded to high sequence turnover loci through repeat invasion, and (3) might be considered as hotspots of evolutionary novelty that could act as a reservoir for producing adaptive phenotypes.
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
Cites
The evolutionary significance of ancient genome duplications
Van de Peer, Y., Maere, S., & Meyer, A. (2009) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2600 · Cited by 1,129
The Behavior in Successive Nuclear Divisions of a Chromosome Broken at Meiosis
McClintock, B. (1939) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.25.8.405 · Cited by 559
Cited by
Argout, X., Salse, J., Aury, J.-M., Guiltinan, M. J., Droc, G., Gouzy, J., Allegre, M., Chaparro, C., Legavre, T., Maximova, S. N., et al. (2011) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.736 · Cited by 746
Self-citationDeciphering the Diploid Ancestral Genome of the Mesohexaploid Brassica rapa
Cheng, F., Mandáková, T., Wu, J., Xie, Q., Lysak, M. A., & Wang, X. (2013) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1105/tpc.113.110486 · Cited by 353
De Storme, N., & Mason, A. (2014) · Current Plant Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cpb.2014.09.002 · Cited by 288
Metadata
- Authors
- Murat, F., Xu, J.-H., Tannier, E., Abrouk, M., Guilhot, N., Pont, C., Messing, J., & Salse, J.
- Venue
- Genome Research
- Publisher
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
- Published
- 2010-09-28
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1545-1557
- ISSN
- 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2135459894
- Cited by
- 242
- References
- 2
- Type
- posted content
- 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: Ancestral grass karyotype reconstruction unravels new mechanisms of genome shuffling as a source of plant evolution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1101/gr.109744.110
- The paper
- Murat, F., Xu, J.-H., Tannier, E., Abrouk, M., Guilhot, N., Pont, C., Messing, J., & Salse, J. (2010). Ancestral grass karyotype reconstruction unravels new mechanisms of genome shuffling as a source of plant evolution. Genome Research. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.109744.110
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.