The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evolutionary rate variation, genomic dominance and duplicate gene expression evolution during allotetraploid cotton speciation
Abstract
Here, we describe the evolution of gene expression among a diversified cohort of five allopolyploid species in the cotton genus (Gossypium). Using this phylogenetic framework and comparisons with expression changes accompanying F(1) hybridization, we provide a temporal perspective on expression diversification following a shared genome duplication. Global patterns of gene expression were studied by the hybridization of petal RNAs to a custom microarray. This platform measures total expression for c. 42 000 duplicated genes, and genome-specific expression for c. 1400 homoeologs (genes duplicated by polyploidy). We report homoeolog expression bias favoring the allopolyploid D genome over the A genome in all species (among five polyploid species, D biases ranging from c. 54 to 60%), in addition to conservation of biases among genes. Furthermore, we find surprising levels of transgressive up- and down-regulation in the allopolyploids, a diminution of the level of bias in genomic expression dominance but not in its magnitude, and high levels of rate variation among allotetraploid species. We illustrate how phylogenetic and temporal components of expression evolution may be partitioned and revealed following allopolyploidy. Overall patterns of expression evolution are similar among the Gossypium allotetraploids, notwithstanding a high level of interspecific rate variation, but differ strikingly from the direction of genomic expression dominance patterns in the synthetic F(1) hybrid.
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
PHYLIP-Phylogeny inference package (Version 3.2)
Felsenstein, J. (1989) · Cladistics · Cited by 17,682
Statistical significance for genomewide studies
Storey, J. D., & Tibshirani, R. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1530509100 · Cited by 9,692
Ohno, S. (1970) · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-86659-3 · Cited by 7,833
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
The advantages and disadvantages of being polyploid
Comai, L. (2005) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg1711 · Cited by 2,287
Synteny and Collinearity in Plant Genomes
Tang, H., Bowers, J. E., Wang, X., Ming, R., Alam, M., & Paterson, A. H. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1153917 · Cited by 1,612
Genome evolution in polyploids
Wendel, J. F. (2000) · Plant Molecular Biology · doi:10.1023/a:1006392424384 · Cited by 1,600
Self-citationTurning a hobby into a job: How duplicated genes find new functions
Conant, G. C., & Wolfe, K. H. (2008) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2482 · Cited by 1,281
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
Genetic and Epigenetic Mechanisms for Gene Expression and Phenotypic Variation in Plant Polyploids
Chen, Z. J. (2007) · Annual Review of Plant Biology · doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103835 · Cited by 997
Cited by
Differentiation of the maize subgenomes by genome dominance and both ancient and ongoing gene loss
Schnable, J. C., Springer, N. M., & Freeling, M. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1101368108 · Cited by 708
The polyploidy revolution then…and now: Stebbins revisited
Soltis, D. E., Visger, C. J., & Soltis, P. S. (2014) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.3732/ajb.1400178 · Cited by 517
Homoeolog expression bias and expression level dominance in allopolyploid cotton
Yoo, M.-J., Szadkowski, E., & Wendel, J. F. (2013) · Heredity · doi:10.1038/hdy.2012.94 · Cited by 441
Self-citationPolyploidy: Pitfalls and paths to a paradigm
Soltis, D. E., Visger, C. J., Marchant, D. B., & Soltis, P. S. (2016) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.3732/ajb.1500501 · Cited by 320
Genome and gene duplications and gene expression divergence: a view from plants
Wang, Y., Wang, X., & Paterson, A. H. (2012) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06384.x · Cited by 277
Metadata
- Authors
- Flagel, L. E., & Wendel, J. F.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-03-03
- Volume
- 186
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 184-193
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2136949764
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 46
- FWCI
- 20.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Evolutionary rate variation, genomic dominance and duplicate gene expression evolution during allotetraploid cotton speciation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03107.x
- The paper
- Flagel, L. E., & Wendel, J. F. (2010). Evolutionary rate variation, genomic dominance and duplicate gene expression evolution during allotetraploid cotton speciation. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03107.x
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.