CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 91

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Seventy Million Years of Concerted Evolution of a Homoeologous Chromosome Pair, in Parallel, in Major Poaceae Lineages

Wang, Xiyin, Tang, Haibao, Paterson, Andrew H.·2011·The Plant Cell
DOI 10.1105/tpc.110.080622
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Whole genome duplication ~70 million years ago provided raw material for Poaceae (grass) diversification. Comparison of rice (Oryza sativa), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), maize (Zea mays), and Brachypodium distachyon genomes revealed that one paleo-duplicated chromosome pair has experienced very different evolution than all the others. For tens of millions of years, the two chromosomes have experienced illegitimate recombination that has been temporally restricted in a stepwise manner, producing structural stratification in the chromosomes. These strata formed independently in different grass lineages, with their similarities (low sequence divergence between paleo-duplicated genes) preserved in parallel for millions of years since the divergence of these lineages. The pericentromeric region of this homeologous chromosome pair accounts for two-thirds of the gene content differences between the modern chromosomes. Both intriguing and perplexing is a distal chromosomal region with the greatest DNA similarity between surviving duplicated genes but also with the highest concentration of lineage-specific gene pairs found anywhere in these genomes and with a significantly elevated gene evolutionary rate. Intragenomic similarity near this chromosomal terminus may be important in hom(e)ologous chromosome pairing. Chromosome structural stratification, together with enrichment of autoimmune response–related (nucleotide binding site–leucine-rich repeat) genes and accelerated DNA rearrangement and gene loss, confer a striking resemblance of this grass chromosome pair to the sex chromosomes of other taxa.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1105/tpc.110.080622

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These results are consistent with the proposed evolutionary mechanism where concerted evolution and 'illegitimate' homeologous recombination may have homogenized these paralogous regions.

    “These results are consistent with the proposed evolutionary mechanism (Wang et al., 2011) where concerted evolution and ‘illegitimate’ homeologous recombination may have homogenized these paralogous regions.”

    From GENESPACE tracks regions of interest and gene copy number variation across multiple genomes (2022) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2011

  • There is significant variation in the relative similarity of Rho-duplicated sequences.

    “However, as has been previously observed (Wang et al., 2011), there is significant variation in the relative similarity of Rho-duplicated sequences.”

    From GENESPACE tracks regions of interest and gene copy number variation across multiple genomes (2022) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2011

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Bomblies, 2007, Autoimmune response as a mechanism for a Dobzhansky-Muller-type incompatibility syndrome in plants, PLoS Biol., 5, e236, 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050236 · DOI
  2. Bowers, 2005, Comparative physical mapping links conservation of microsynteny to chromosome structure and recombination in grasses, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 102, 13206, 10.1073/pnas.0502365102 · DOI
  3. Bowers, 2003, Unravelling angiosperm genome evolution by phylogenetic analysis of chromosomal duplication events, Nature, 422, 433, 10.1038/nature01521 · DOI
  4. Bozza, 2008, The cytogenetics of homologous chromosome pairing in meiosis in plants, Cytogenet. Genome Res., 120, 313, 10.1159/000121080 · DOI
  5. Brachypodium Genome Sequencing Initiative, 2010, Genome sequencing and analysis of the model grass Brachypodium distachyon, Nature, 463, 763, 10.1038/nature08747 · DOI
  6. Caceres, 1999, Generation of a widespread Drosophila inversion by a transposable element, Science, 285, 415, 10.1126/science.285.5426.415 · DOI
  7. Devos, 2000, Comparative mapping reveals a complex relationship between the pearl millet genome and those of foxtail millet and rice TAG, Theor. Appl. Genet., 100, 190, 10.1007/s001220050026 · DOI
  8. Ding, 2004, Dynamics of homologous chromosome pairing during meiotic prophase in fission yeast, Dev. Cell, 6, 329, 10.1016/S1534-5807(04)00059-0 · DOI
  9. Feldman, 1997, Rapid elimination of low-copy DNA sequences in polyploid wheat: a possible mechanism for differentiation of homoeologous chromosomes, Genetics, 147, 1381, 10.1093/genetics/147.3.1381 · DOI
  10. Freeling, 2006, Gene-balanced duplications, like tetraploidy, provide predictable drive to increase morphological complexity, Genome Res., 16, 805, 10.1101/gr.3681406 · DOI
  11. Fu, 2002, Recombination rates between adjacent genic and retrotransposon regions in maize vary by 2 orders of magnitude, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 99, 1082, 10.1073/pnas.022635499 · DOI
  12. Gaeta, 2007, Genomic changes in resynthesized Brassica napus and their effect on gene expression and phenotype, Plant Cell, 19, 3403, 10.1105/tpc.107.054346 · DOI
  13. Galtier, 2003, Gene conversion drives GC content evolution in mammalian histones, Trends Genet., 19, 65, 10.1016/S0168-9525(02)00002-1 · DOI
  14. Gao, 2004, Very low gene duplication rate in the yeast genome, Science, 306, 1367, 10.1126/science.1102033 · DOI
  15. Gaut, 1998, Molecular clocks and nucleotide substitution rates in higher plants, Evol. Biol., 30, 93
  16. Gaut, 2007, Recombination: an underappreciated factor in the evolution of plant genomes, Natl. Rev., 8, 77, 10.1038/nrg1970 · DOI
  17. Goff, 2002, A draft sequence of the rice genome (Oryza sativa L. ssp. japonica), Science, 296, 92, 10.1126/science.1068275 · DOI
  18. Innan, 2010, The evolution of gene duplications: classifying and distinguishing between models, Nat. Rev. Genet., 11, 97, 10.1038/nrg2689 · DOI
  19. International Rice Genome Sequencing Project, 2005, The map-based sequence of the rice genome, Nature, 436, 793, 10.1038/nature03895 · DOI
  20. Jacquemin, 2009, A recent duplication revisited: phylogenetic analysis reveals an ancestral duplication highly-conserved throughout the Oryza genus and beyond, BMC Plant Biol., 9, 146, 10.1186/1471-2229-9-146 · DOI
  21. Kellis, 2004, Proof and evolutionary analysis of ancient genome duplication in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Nature, 428, 617, 10.1038/nature02424 · DOI
  22. Kent, 2002, BLAT–The BLAST-Like Alignment Tool, Genome Res., 4, 656, 10.1101/gr.229202 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Krumsiek, 2007, Gepard: A rapid and sensitive tool for creating dotplots on genome scale, Bioinformatics, 23, 1026, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm039 · DOI
  24. Lahn, 1999, Four evolutionary strata on the human X chromosome, Science, 286, 964, 10.1126/science.286.5441.964 · DOI
  25. Lawson Handley, 2006, Low Y chromosome variation in Saudi-Arabian hamadryas baboons (Papio hamadryas hamadryas), Heredity, 96, 298, 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800803 · DOI
  26. Liao, 2000, Gene conversion drives within genic sequences: concerted evolution of ribosomal RNA genes in bacteria and archaea, J. Mol. Evol., 51, 305, 10.1007/s002390010093 · DOI
  27. Liu, 1987, Mouse histone H2A and H2B genes: four functional genes and a pseudogene undergoing gene conversion with a closely linked functional gene, Nucleic Acids Res., 15, 3023, 10.1093/nar/15.7.3023 · DOI
  28. Lynch, 2000, The origin of interspecific genomic incompatibility via gene duplication, Am. Nat., 156, 590, 10.1086/316992 · DOI
  29. Lysak, 2006, Mechanisms of chromosome number reduction in Arabidopsis thaliana and related Brassicaceae species, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 5224, 10.1073/pnas.0510791103 · DOI
  30. Michelmore, 1998, Clusters of resistance genes in plants evolve by divergent selection and a birth-and-death process, Genome Res., 8, 1113, 10.1101/gr.8.11.1113 · DOI
  31. Ming, 2007, Genomics of sex chromosomes, Curr. Opin. Plant Biol., 10, 123, 10.1016/j.pbi.2007.01.013 · DOI
  32. Nei, 1986, Simple methods for estimating the numbers of synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide substitutions, Mol. Biol. Evol., 3, 418
  33. Paterson, 2009, The Sorghum bicolor genome and the diversification of grasses, Nature, 457, 551, 10.1038/nature07723 · DOI
  34. Paterson, 2004, Ancient polyploidization predating divergence of the cereals, and its consequences for comparative genomics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 9903, 10.1073/pnas.0307901101 · DOI
  35. Paterson, 2003, Structure and evolution of cereal genomes, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev., 13, 644, 10.1016/j.gde.2003.10.002 · DOI
  36. Rice Chromosomes 11 and 12 Sequencing Consortia, 2005, The sequence of rice chromosomes 11 and 12, rice in disease resistance genes and recent gene duplications, BMC Biol., 3, 20, 10.1186/1741-7007-3-20 · DOI
  37. Salse, 2009, Reconstruction of monocotyledonous proto-chromosomes reveals faster evolution in plants than in animals, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 106, 14908, 10.1073/pnas.0902350106 · DOI
  38. Sankoff, 2010, The collapse of gene complement following whole genome duplication, BMC Genomics, 11, 313, 10.1186/1471-2164-11-313 · DOI
  39. Scannell, 2006, Multiple rounds of speciation associated with reciprocal gene loss in polyploid yeasts, Nature, 440, 341, 10.1038/nature04562 · DOI
  40. Schnable, 2009, The B73 maize genome: complexity, diversity, and dynamics, Science, 326, 1112, 10.1126/science.1178534 · DOI
  41. Simillion, 2002, The hidden duplication past of Arabidopsis thaliana, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 99, 13627, 10.1073/pnas.212522399 · DOI
  42. Singh, 2007, Single-copy genes define a conserved order between rice and wheat for understanding differences caused by duplication, deletion, and transposition of genes, Funct. Integr. Genomics, 7, 17, 10.1007/s10142-006-0033-4 · DOI
  43. Sugino, 2005, Estimating the time to the whole-genome duplication and the duration of concerted evolution via gene conversion in yeast, Genetics, 171, 63, 10.1534/genetics.105.043869 · DOI
  44. Tang, 2008, Synteny and colinearity in plant genomes, Science, 320, 486, 10.1126/science.1153917 · DOI
  45. Tang, 2010, Angiosperm genome comparisons reveal early polyploidy in the monocot lineage, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 472, 10.1073/pnas.0908007107 · DOI
  46. Tang, 2008, Unraveling ancient hexaploidy through multiply-aligned angiosperm gene maps, Genome Res., 18, 1944, 10.1101/gr.080978.108 · DOI
  47. Teshima, 2004, The effect of gene conversion on the divergence between duplicated genes, Genetics, 166, 1553, 10.1534/genetics.166.3.1553 · DOI
  48. Thomas, 2006, Following tetraploidy in an Arabidopsis ancestor, genes were removed preferentially from one homeolog leaving clusters enriched in dose-sensitive genes, Genome Res., 16, 934, 10.1101/gr.4708406 · DOI
  49. Thompson, 1994, CLUSTAL W: Improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice, Nucleic Acids Res., 22, 4673, 10.1093/nar/22.22.4673 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Wang, 2005, Duplication and DNA segmental loss in the rice genome: implications for diploidization, New Phytol., 165, 937, 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01293.x · DOI
  51. Wang, 2006, Statistical inference of chromosomal homology based on gene colinearity and applications to Arabidopsis and rice, BMC Bioinformatics, 7, 447, 10.1186/1471-2105-7-447 · DOI
  52. Wang, 2007, Extensive concerted evolution of rice paralogs and the road to regaining independence, Genetics, 177, 1753, 10.1534/genetics.107.073197 · DOI
  53. Wang, 2009, Comparative inference of illegitimate recombination between rice and sorghum duplicated genes produced by polyploidization, Genome Res., 19, 1026, 10.1101/gr.087288.108 · DOI
  54. Werth, 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate-gene expression, Am. Nat., 137, 515, 10.1086/285180 · DOI
  55. Woodhouse, 2010, Following tetraploidy in maize, a short deletion mechanism removed genes preferentially from one of the two homologs, PLoS Biol, 8, e1000409, 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000409 · DOI
  56. Yang, 1997, PAML: a program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood, Comput. Appl. Biosci., 13, 555
  57. Yin, 2008, Genome structure and emerging evidence of an incipient sex chromosome in Populus, Genome Res., 18, 422, 10.1101/gr.7076308 · DOI
  58. Yu, 2005, The genomes of Oryza sativa: A history of duplications, PLoS Biol., 3, e38, 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030038 · DOI
  59. Zhou, 2004, Genome-wide identification of NBS genes in japonica rice reveals significant expansion of divergent non-TIR NBS-LRR genes, Mol. Genet. Genomics, 271, 402, 10.1007/s00438-004-0990-z · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wang, X., Tang, H., & Paterson, A. H.
Affiliations
Plant Genome Mapping Laboratory, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602
Venue
The Plant Cell
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2011-01-01
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
27-37
ISSN
  • 1532-298X
  • 1040-4651
DOI
10.1105/tpc.110.080622
Cited by
91
References
0
Language
en
Licence
academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)

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