The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Genome Relationships: The Grass Model in Current Research
Open accessAbstract
Ten years ago, with the advent of comparative mapping, a new tool became available to plant geneticists. Comparative genome analyses demonstrated that gene orders among related plant species remained largely conserved over millions of years of evolution. This finding has revolutionized our thinking and formed the basis of a new science—comparative genomics. Since the first comparative mapping experiments, studies of genome relationships have included an ever wider range of plant species, and the focus has shifted from comparisons at the gross map level to studies of gene organization in small chromosomal regions and finally to the DNA sequence itself. To date, the most comprehensive data set comes from the grasses. The Poaceae family includes the staple cereals rice, maize, wheat, barley, sorghum, and the millets. For most of the past century, research has proceeded on each of these species individually. Mutants were produced, genetic maps were generated, and biochemical pathways were unraveled. Comparative genomics has provided the basis and stimulus to integrate this knowledge for application to all cereal crops. The realization of the power of a comparative approach has led to several plant genome initiatives and has promoted rice as a model for cereal crops. The rice genome, with only 400 million DNA base pairs (Mb), is the smallest among the major cereal crops and only approximately four times larger than that of the eudicot model plant Arabidopsis. Dense genetic maps, carrying some 2500 markers, have been constructed, and physical maps cover most of the genome. Additionally, large public collections of expressed sequence tags (ESTs) have become available, and it is clear that sequence data covering the entire rice genome will add a further vital dimension to comparative genomics in the near future. Views on the prospective applications of comparative genomics have developed as new insights have been gained into genome relationships and genome organization. At the same time, new opportunities have been envisaged and exploited. Below, we present an overview of the status of comparative genomics, with examples of ongoing research projects, focusing on wheat. Cereal crop species vary greatly in their DNA content, from ∼400 Mb in the small rice and foxtail millet genomes to 17,000 Mb in bread wheat. The bulk of the larger genomes consists of repetitive DNA sequences, most of which are species specific. Genes, on the other hand, tend to be highly conserved at the DNA sequence level. This conservation allows the use of heterologous probes in DNA gel blot experiments to identify orthologous DNA sequences even in species belonging to different tribes within the same taxonomic family. Therefore, cross-mapping of gene sequences is the first step to study genome relationships. An evolutionary analysis of closely related genomes is one immediate result of molecular mapping within allopolyploid species. Wheat, for example, arose through spontaneous hybridization of the diploid species Triticum urartu (AA genome) and an unknown species (BB genome), probably belonging to the Sitopsis group of Aegilops spp, to form tetraploid wheat (AABB). Further hybridization with a third ancestral species, Aegilops tauschii (DD), led, ∼10,000 years ago, to the production of hexaploid bread wheat (2n = 6x = 42; AABBDD). The finding that the three wheat genomes have a highly similar gene content and order was the first demonstration of colinearity in the grasses and a pivotal finding in the development of comparative genomics (Chao et al., 1989). Subsequently, it has become clear that the genomes are rearranged, relative to one another, through the occurrence of large reciprocal translocations involving chromosome arms 2BS and 6BS (Devos et al., 1993b) and chromosomes 4A, 5A, and 7B (Devos et al., 1995). The first translocation in this latter complex involved chromosome arms 4AL and 5AL and took place in the diploid ancestor. The remaining rearrangements probably arose at the tetraploid level. Comparisons at the genetic map level within the tribe Triticeae, which includes wheat, barley, rye, and wild relatives such as Aegilops spp, again show a high conservation of genome colinearity, which is only disrupted by gross chromosomal translocations. Interestingly, the number of rearrangements observed between different genomes varies greatly and appears to be unrelated to phylogenetic distance or evolutionary time. For example, the barley (Hordeum vulgare) genome is highly colinear with that of A. tauschii, differing only by two possible inversions (Dubcovsky et al., 1996), whereas the A. umbellulata and A. tauschii genomes differ by a minimum of 11 rearrangements (Zhang et al., 1998; Figure 1). Phylogenetic data have, however, indicated that A. umbellulata is more closely related to A. tauschii than is barley (Kellogg et al., 1996). Analyses of other Triticeae, such as rye (Secale cereale) (Devos et al., 1993a), A. longissima (Naranjo, 1
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
‘Green revolution’ genes encode mutant gibberellin response modulators
Peng, J., Richards, D. E., Hartley, N. M., Murphy, G. P., Devos, K. M., Flintham, J. E., Beales, J., Fish, L. J., Worland, A. J., Pelica, F., et al. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/22307 · Cited by 2,252
Self-citationNested Retrotransposons in the Intergenic Regions of the Maize Genome
SanMiguel, P., Tikhonov, A., Jin, Y.-K., Motchoulskaia, N., Zakharov, D., Melake-Berhan, A., Springer, P. S., Edwards, K. J., Lee, M., Avramova, Z., et al. (1996) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.274.5288.765 · Cited by 1,401
The Barley Mlo Gene: A Novel Control Element of Plant Pathogen Resistance
Büschges, R., Hollricher, K., Panstruga, R., Simons, G., Wolter, M., Frijters, A., van Daelen, R., van der Lee, T., Diergaarde, P., Groenendijk, J., et al. (1997) · Cell · doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81912-1 · Cited by 1,192
The aneuploids of common wheat
Sears, E. R. (1954) · MOspace Institutional Repository (University of Missouri) · Cited by 1,042
The paleontology of intergene retrotransposons of maize
SanMiguel, P., Gaut, B. S., Tikhonov, A., Nakajima, Y., & Bennetzen, J. L. (1998) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/1695 · Cited by 998
Sequence and analysis of chromosome 2 of the plant Arabidopsis thaliana
Lin, X., Kaul, S., Rounsley, S., Shea, T. P., Benito, M.-I., Town, C. D., Fujii, C. Y., Mason, T., Bowman, C. L., Barnstead, M., et al. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/45471 · Cited by 709
A short history of MADS-box genes in plants
Theissen, G., Becker, A., Di Rosa, A., Kanno, A., Kim, J. T., Münster, T., Winter, K.-U., & Saedler, H. (2000) · Plant Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4221-2_6 · Cited by 672
Convergent Domestication of Cereal Crops by Independent Mutations at Corresponding Genetic Loci
Paterson, A. H., Lin, Y.-R., Li, Z., Schertz, K. F., Doebley, J. F., Pinson, S. R. M., Liu, S.-C., Stansel, J. W., & Irvine, J. E. (1995) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.269.5231.1714 · Cited by 613
RFLP-based genetic maps of wheat homoeologous group 7 chromosomes
Chao, S., Sharp, P. J., Worland, A. J., Warham, E. J., Koebner, R. M. D., & Gale, M. D. (1989) · Theoretical and Applied Genetics · doi:10.1007/bf00290833 · Cited by 538
Self-citationIdentification and High-Density Mapping of Gene-Rich Regions in Chromosome Group 5 of Wheat
Gill, K. S., Gill, B. S., Endo, T. R., & Boyko, E. V. (1996) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/143.2.1001 · Cited by 430
Cited by
Ancient hybridizations among the ancestral genomes of bread wheat
Marcussen, T., Sandve, S. R., Heier, L., Spannagl, M., Pfeifer, M., The International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium, Jakobsen, K. S., Wulff, B. B. H., Steuernagel, B., Mayer, K. F. X., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1250092 · Cited by 767
Taji, T., Seki, M., Satou, M., Sakurai, T., Kobayashi, M., Ishiyama, K., Narusaka, Y., Narusaka, M., Zhu, J.-K., & Shinozaki, K. (2004) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.104.039909 · Cited by 594
The ABC’s of comparative genomics in the Brassicaceae: building blocks of crucifer genomes
Schranz, M. E., Lysak, M. A., & Mitchell-Olds, T. (2006) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2006.09.002 · Cited by 575
Estimating genome conservation between crop and model legume species
Choi, H.-K., Mun, J.-H., Kim, D.-J., Zhu, H., Baek, J.-M., Mudge, J., Roe, B., Ellis, N., Doyle, J., Kiss, G. B., et al. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0402251101 · Cited by 472
Evolutionary dynamics of grass genomes
Gaut, B. S. (2002) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00352.x · Cited by 403
Metadata
- Authors
- Devos, K. M., & Gale, M. D.
- Venue
- The Plant Cell
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-05
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 637-646
- ISSN
- 1040-4651 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-298X
- OpenAlex
- W2052009618
- Cited by
- 461
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 47.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Genome Relationships: The Grass Model in Current Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1105/tpc.12.5.637
- The paper
- Devos, K. M., & Gale, M. D. (2000). Genome Relationships: The Grass Model in Current Research. The Plant Cell. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.12.5.637
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.