Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 253

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 99 of the 99 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Subgenome Dominance in an Interspecific Hybrid, Synthetic Allopolyploid, and a 140-Year-Old Naturally Established Neo-Allopolyploid Monkeyflower

Open access
Edger, Patrick P., Smith, Ronald, McKain, Michael R., Cooley, Arielle M., Vallejo-Marin, Mario, Yuan, Yaowu, Bewick, Adam J., Ji, Lexiang, Platts, Adrian E., Bowman, Megan J., Childs, Kevin L., Washburn, Jacob D., Schmitz, Robert J., Smith, Gregory D., Pires, J. Chris, Puzey, Joshua R.·2017·The Plant Cell

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that one of the parental subgenomes in ancient polyploids is generally more dominant, having retained more genes and being more highly expressed, a phenomenon termed subgenome dominance. The genomic features that determine how quickly and which subgenome dominates within a newly formed polyploid remain poorly understood. To investigate the rate of emergence of subgenome dominance, we examined gene expression, gene methylation, and transposable element (TE) methylation in a natural, <140-year-old allopolyploid (Mimulus peregrinus), a resynthesized interspecies triploid hybrid (M. robertsii), a resynthesized allopolyploid (M. peregrinus), and progenitor species (M. guttatus and M. luteus). We show that subgenome expression dominance occurs instantly following the hybridization of divergent genomes and significantly increases over generations. Additionally, CHH methylation levels are reduced in regions near genes and within TEs in the first-generation hybrid, intermediate in the resynthesized allopolyploid, and are repatterned differently between the dominant and recessive subgenomes in the natural allopolyploid. Subgenome differences in levels of TE methylation mirror the increase in expression bias observed over the generations following hybridization. These findings provide important insights into genomic and epigenomic shock that occurs following hybridization and polyploid events and may also contribute to uncovering the mechanistic basis of heterosis and subgenome dominance.

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 · 10.1105/tpc.17.00010

Cites

99 of 99 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 99 references

Cited by

See all 253

Metadata

Authors
Edger, P. P., Smith, R., McKain, M. R., Cooley, A. M., Vallejo-Marin, M., Yuan, Y., Bewick, A. J., Ji, L., Platts, A. E., Bowman, M. J., Childs, K. L., Washburn, J. D., Schmitz, R. J., Smith, G. D., Pires, J. C., & Puzey, J. R.
Venue
The Plant Cell
Published
2017-08-16
Volume
29
Issue
9
Pages
2150-2167
ISSN
  • 1040-4651 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-298X
OpenAlex
W2950988036
Cited by
253
References
99
FWCI
20.23
Type
journal article
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: Subgenome Dominance in an Interspecific Hybrid, Synthetic Allopolyploid, and a 140-Year-Old Naturally Established Neo-Allopolyploid Monkeyflower. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1105/tpc.17.00010
The paper
Edger, P. P., Smith, R., McKain, M. R., Cooley, A. M., Vallejo-Marin, M., Yuan, Y., Bewick, A. J., Ji, L., Platts, A. E., Bowman, M. J., Childs, K. L., Washburn, J. D., Schmitz, R. J., Smith, G. D., Pires, J. C., & Puzey, J. R. (2017). Subgenome Dominance in an Interspecific Hybrid, Synthetic Allopolyploid, and a 140-Year-Old Naturally Established Neo-Allopolyploid Monkeyflower. The Plant Cell. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.17.00010

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.