Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 746

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 access
Cui, Liying, Wall, P. Kerr, Leebens-Mack, James H., Lindsay, Bruce G., Soltis, Douglas E., Doyle, Jeff J., Soltis, Pamela S., Carlson, John E., Arumuganathan, Kathiravetpilla, Barakat, Abdelali, Albert, Victor A., Ma, Hong, dePamphilis, Claude W.·2006·Genome Research

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/gr.4825606

Cites

76 of 76 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 76 references

Cited by

See all 746

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
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.