Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 444

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Analysis of 41 plant genomes supports a wave of successful genome duplications in association with the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary

Open access
Vanneste, Kevin, Baele, Guy, Maere, Steven, Van de Peer, Yves·2014·Genome Research

Abstract

Ancient whole-genome duplications (WGDs), also referred to as paleopolyploidizations, have been reported in most evolutionary lineages. Their attributed role remains a major topic of discussion, ranging from an evolutionary dead end to a road toward evolutionary success, with evidence supporting both fates. Previously, based on dating WGDs in a limited number of plant species, we found a clustering of angiosperm paleopolyploidizations around the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event about 66 million years ago. Here we revisit this finding, which has proven controversial, by combining genome sequence information for many more plant lineages and using more sophisticated analyses. We include 38 full genome sequences and three transcriptome assemblies in a Bayesian evolutionary analysis framework that incorporates uncorrelated relaxed clock methods and fossil uncertainty. In accordance with earlier findings, we demonstrate a strongly nonrandom pattern of genome duplications over time with many WGDs clustering around the K–Pg boundary. We interpret these results in the context of recent studies on invasive polyploid plant species, and suggest that polyploid establishment is promoted during times of environmental stress. We argue that considering the evolutionary potential of polyploids in light of the environmental and ecological conditions present around the time of polyploidization could mitigate the stark contrast in the proposed evolutionary fates of polyploids.

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 · 10.1101/gr.168997.113

Cites

17 of 17 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 17 references

Cited by

See all 444

Metadata

Authors
Vanneste, K., Baele, G., Maere, S., & Van de Peer, Y.
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2014-05-16
Volume
24
Issue
8
Pages
1334-1347
ISSN
  • 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5469
OpenAlex
W2149085519
Cited by
444
References
17
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Analysis of 41 plant genomes supports a wave of successful genome duplications in association with the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1101/gr.168997.113
The paper
Vanneste, K., Baele, G., Maere, S., & Van de Peer, Y. (2014). Analysis of 41 plant genomes supports a wave of successful genome duplications in association with the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary. Genome Research. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.168997.113

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.