The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mining EST databases to resolve evolutionary events in major crop species
Abstract
Using plant EST collections, we obtained 1392 potential gene duplicates across 8 plant species: Zea mays, Oryza sativa, Sorghum bicolor, Hordeum vulgare, Solanum tuberosum, Lycopersicon esculentum, Medicago truncatula, and Glycine max. We estimated the synonymous and nonsynonymous distances between each gene pair and identified two to three mixtures of normal distributions corresponding to one to three rounds of genome duplication in each species. Within the Poaceae, we found a conserved duplication event among all four species that occurred approximately 50–60 million years ago (Mya); an event that probably occurred before the major radiation of the grasses. In the Solanaceae, we found evidence for a conserved duplication event approximately 50–52 Mya. A duplication in soybean occurred approximately 44 Mya and a duplication in Medicago about 58 Mya. Comparing synonymous and nonsynonymous distances allowed us to determine that most duplicate gene pairs are under purifying, negative selection. We calculated Pearson's correlation coefficients to provide us with a measure of how gene expression patterns have changed between duplicate pairs, and compared this across evolutionary distances. This analysis showed that some duplicates seemed to retain expression patterns between pairs, whereas others showed uncorrelated expression.Key words: genome evolution, polyploidy, genome duplication, expressed sequence tag.
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
McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471721182 · Cited by 10,991
CAP3: A DNA Sequence Assembly Program
Huang, X., & Madan, A. (1999) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.9.9.868 · Cited by 5,261
The Evolutionary Fate and Consequences of Duplicate Genes
Lynch, M., & Conery, J. S. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.290.5494.1151 · Cited by 4,988
A codon-based model of nucleotide substitution for protein-coding DNA sequences.
(1994) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040153 · Cited by 1,960
Nei, M., Xu, P., & Glazko, G. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.051611498 · Cited by 329
A methodological bias toward overestimation of molecular evolutionary time scales
Rodríguez-Trelles, F., Tarrío, R., & Ayala, F. J. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.122231299 · Cited by 116 · cited 2×
“First, an overestimation of " time since divergence " can occur owing to asymmetrically bounded variables (non-elastic boundary at present and an elastic boundary in the past) (Rodriguez-Trelles et al. 2002).”
Background
Cited by
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
The evolutionary significance of ancient genome duplications
Van de Peer, Y., Maere, S., & Meyer, A. (2009) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2600 · Cited by 1,129
Widespread genome duplications throughout the history of flowering plants
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., et al. (2006) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.4825606 · Cited by 746
Self-citationThe Physcomitrella patens chromosome‐scale assembly reveals moss genome structure and evolution
Lang, D., Ullrich, K. K., Murat, F., Fuchs, J., Jenkins, J., Haas, F. B., Piednoel, M., Gundlach, H., Van Bel, M., Meyberg, R., et al. (2018) · The Plant Journal · doi:10.1111/tpj.13801 · Cited by 423
Doubling down on genomes: Polyploidy and crop plants
Renny‐Byfield, S., & Wendel, J. F. (2014) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.3732/ajb.1400119 · Cited by 406
Metadata
- Authors
- Schlueter, J. A., Dixon, P., Granger, C., Grant, D., Clark, L., Doyle, J. J., & Shoemaker, R. C.
- Venue
- Genome
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 2004-10-01
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 868-876
- ISSN
- 0831-2796 (ISSN-L)
- 1480-3321
- OpenAlex
- W2074363252
- Cited by
- 340
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 17.62
- 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: Mining EST databases to resolve evolutionary events in major crop species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1139/g04-047
- The paper
- Schlueter, J. A., Dixon, P., Granger, C., Grant, D., Clark, L., Doyle, J. J., & Shoemaker, R. C. (2004). Mining EST databases to resolve evolutionary events in major crop species. Genome. https://doi.org/10.1139/g04-047
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.