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 accessAbstract
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.
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
A new look at the statistical model identification
Akaike, H. (1974) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 · Cited by 51,879
Guindon, S., Dufayard, J.-F., Lefort, V., Anisimova, M., Hordijk, W., & Gascuel, O. (2010) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syq010 · Cited by 18,376
Relaxed Phylogenetics and Dating with Confidence
Drummond, A. J., Ho, S. Y. W., Phillips, M. J., & Rambaut, A. (2006) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040088 · Cited by 6,463 · cited 7×
“Here, we use the UCLD relaxed clock model implemented in the BEAST package, which assumes an uncorrelated lognormal distri- bution of evolutionary rates (Drummond et al. 2006, 2012).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Evolutionary Fate and Consequences of Duplicate Genes
Lynch, M., & Conery, J. S. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.290.5494.1151 · Cited by 4,988
Sanderson, M. J. (2002) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003974 · Cited by 1,977
Sanderson, M. J. (2003) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/19.2.301 · Cited by 1,906
Kernel density estimation via diffusion
Botev, Z. I., Grotowski, J. F., & Kroese, D. P. (2010) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/10-aos799 · Cited by 1,689
Estimating the rate of evolution of the rate of molecular evolution
Thorne, J. L., Kishino, H., & Painter, I. S. (1998) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025892 · Cited by 1,317 · cited 2×
“other methods/software to avoid propagation of branch length errors (Thorne et al. 1998).”
MethodThe 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
Self-citationPaleontological Evidence to Date the Tree of Life
Benton, M. J., & Donoghue, P. C. J. (2006) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msl150 · Cited by 916
Cited by
One thousand plant transcriptomes and the phylogenomics of green plants
Initiative, O. T. P. T. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1693-2 · Cited by 1,734
Polyploidy and genome evolution in plants
Soltis, P. S., Marchant, D. B., Van de Peer, Y., & Soltis, D. E. (2015) · Current Opinion in Genetics & Development · doi:10.1016/j.gde.2015.11.003 · Cited by 773
Fire as a key driver of Earth's biodiversity
He, T., Lamont, B. B., & Pausas, J. G. (2019) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12544 · Cited by 623
The Physcomitrella patens chromosome‐scale assembly reveals moss genome structure and evolution
Lang, D., Ullrich, K. K., Murat, F., Fuchs, J., Jenkins, J., Haas, F. B., Piednoel, M., Gundlach, H., Van Bel, M., Meyberg, R., et al. (2018) · The Plant Journal · doi:10.1111/tpj.13801 · Cited by 423
Alix, K., Gérard, P. R., Schwarzacher, T., & Heslop-Harrison, J. S. (. (2017) · Annals of Botany · doi:10.1093/aob/mcx079 · Cited by 420
Metadata
- Authors
- Vanneste, K., Baele, G., Maere, S., & Van de Peer, Y.
- Venue
- Genome Research
- Publisher
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
- 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.