The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Widespread genome duplications throughout the history of flowering plants
Open accessAbstract
Genomic comparisons provide evidence for ancient genome-wide duplications in a diverse array of animals and plants. We developed a birth–death model to identify evidence for genome duplication in EST data, and applied a mixture model to estimate the age distribution of paralogous pairs identified in EST sets for species representing the basal-most extant flowering plant lineages. We found evidence for episodes of ancient genome-wide duplications in the basal angiosperm lineages including Nuphar advena (yellow water lily: Nymphaeaceae) and the magnoliids Persea americana (avocado: Lauraceae), Liriodendron tulipifera (tulip poplar: Magnoliaceae), and Saruma henryi (Aristolochiaceae). In addition, we detected independent genome duplications in the basal eudicot Eschscholzia californica (California poppy: Papaveraceae) and the basal monocot Acorus americanus (Acoraceae), both of which were distinct from duplications documented for ancestral grass (Poaceae) and core eudicot lineages. Among gymnosperms, we found equivocal evidence for ancient polyploidy in Welwitschia mirabilis (Gnetales) and no evidence for polyploidy in pine, although gymnosperms generally have much larger genomes than the angiosperms investigated. Cross-species sequence divergence estimates suggest that synonymous substitution rates in the basal angiosperms are less than half those previously reported for core eudicots and members of Poaceae. These lower substitution rates permit inference of older duplication events. We hypothesize that evidence of an ancient duplication observed in the Nuphar data may represent a genome duplication in the common ancestor of all or most extant angiosperms, except Amborella.
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
Estimating the Dimension of a Model
Schwarz, G. (1978) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1176344136 · Cited by 47,033
A Simple, Fast, and Accurate Algorithm to Estimate Large Phylogenies by Maximum Likelihood
Guindon, S., & Gascuel, O. (2003) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150390235520 · Cited by 16,806
MUSCLE: a multiple sequence alignment method with reduced time and space complexity
Edgar, R. C. (2004) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-5-113 · Cited by 8,970
Ohno, S. (1970) · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-86659-3 · Cited by 7,833
Base-Calling of Automated Sequencer Traces Using Phred. I. Accuracy Assessment
Ewing, B., Hillier, L., Wendl, M. C., & Green, P. (1998) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.8.3.175 · Cited by 6,967
Base-Calling of Automated Sequencer Traces Using Phred. II. Error Probabilities
Ewing, B., & Green, P. (1998) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.8.3.186 · Cited by 5,439
PAML: a program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood
Yang, Z. (1997) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/13.5.555 · Cited by 5,373
The 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
Simple methods for estimating the numbers of synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide substitutions.
(1986) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040410 · Cited by 4,894
Preservation of Duplicate Genes by Complementary, Degenerative Mutations
Force, A., Lynch, M., Pickett, F. B., Amores, A., Yan, Y.-L., & Postlethwait, J. (1999) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/151.4.1531 · Cited by 3,529
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 angiosperm diversification
Soltis, D. E., Albert, V. A., Leebens‐Mack, J., Bell, C. D., Paterson, A. H., Zheng, C., Sankoff, D., de Pamphilis, C. W., Wall, P. K., & Soltis, P. S. (2009) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.3732/ajb.0800079 · Cited by 1,257
Self-citationThe 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
Rieseberg, L. H., & Willis, J. H. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1137729 · Cited by 1,040
On the relative abundance of autopolyploids and allopolyploids
Barker, M. S., Arrigo, N., Baniaga, A. E., Li, Z., & Levin, D. A. (2016) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.13698 · Cited by 393
Metadata
- Authors
- Cui, L., Wall, P. K., Leebens-Mack, J. H., Lindsay, B. G., Soltis, D. E., Doyle, J. J., Soltis, P. S., Carlson, J. E., Arumuganathan, K., Barakat, A., Albert, V. A., Ma, H., & dePamphilis, C. W.
- Venue
- Genome Research
- Publisher
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
- Published
- 2006-05-15
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 738-749
- ISSN
- 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2169335408
- Cited by
- 746
- References
- 76
- 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: Widespread genome duplications throughout the history of flowering plants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1101/gr.4825606
- The paper
- Cui, L., Wall, P. K., Leebens-Mack, J. H., Lindsay, B. G., Soltis, D. E., Doyle, J. J., Soltis, P. S., Carlson, J. E., Arumuganathan, K., Barakat, A., Albert, V. A., Ma, H., & dePamphilis, C. W. (2006). Widespread genome duplications throughout the history of flowering plants. Genome Research. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.4825606
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.