The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Following Tetraploidy in Maize, a Short Deletion Mechanism Removed Genes Preferentially from One of the Two Homeologs
Open accessAbstract
Previous work in Arabidopsis showed that after an ancient tetraploidy event, genes were preferentially removed from one of the two homologs, a process known as fractionation. The mechanism of fractionation is unknown. We sought to determine whether such preferential, or biased, fractionation exists in maize and, if so, whether a specific mechanism could be implicated in this process. We studied the process of fractionation using two recently sequenced grass species: sorghum and maize. The maize lineage has experienced a tetraploidy since its divergence from sorghum approximately 12 million years ago, and fragments of many knocked-out genes retain enough sequence similarity to be easily identifiable. Using sorghum exons as the query sequence, we studied the fate of both orthologous genes in maize following the maize tetraploidy. We show that genes are predominantly lost, not relocated, and that single-gene loss by deletion is the rule. Based on comparisons with orthologous sorghum and rice genes, we also infer that the sequences present before the deletion events were flanked by short direct repeats, a signature of intra-chromosomal recombination. Evidence of this deletion mechanism is found 2.3 times more frequently on one of the maize homologs, consistent with earlier observations of biased fractionation. The over-fractionated homolog is also a greater than 3-fold better target for transposon removal, but does not have an observably higher synonymous base substitution rate, nor could we find differentially placed methylation domains. We conclude that fractionation is indeed biased in maize and that intra-chromosomal or possibly a similar illegitimate recombination is the primary mechanism by which fractionation occurs. The mechanism of intra-chromosomal recombination explains the observed bias in both gene and transposon loss in the maize lineage. The existence of fractionation bias demonstrates that the frequency of deletion is modulated. Among the evolutionary benefits of this deletion/fractionation mechanism is bulk DNA removal and the generation of novel combinations of regulatory sequences and coding regions.
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
Needleman, S. B., & Wunsch, C. D. (1970) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-2836(70)90057-4 · Cited by 11,288
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
Epigenetic regulation of transposable elements in plants
Lisch, D. (2009) · Annual Review of Plant Biology · doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092744 · Cited by 469
Self-citation
Cited by
The genome of the mesopolyploid crop species Brassica rapa
The Brassica rapa Genome Sequencing Project Consortium, Wang, X., Wang, H., Wang, J., Sun, R., Wu, J., Liu, S., Bai, Y., Mun, J.-H., Bancroft, I., et al. (2011) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.919 · Cited by 2,074
Self-citationThe Brassica oleracea genome reveals the asymmetrical evolution of polyploid genomes
Liu, S., Liu, Y., Yang, X., Tong, C., Edwards, D., Parkin, I. A. P., Zhao, M., Ma, J., Yu, J., Huang, S., et al. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms4930 · Cited by 1,161
The Arabidopsis lyrata genome sequence and the basis of rapid genome size change
Hu, T. T., Pattyn, P., Bakker, E. G., Cao, J., Cheng, J.-F., Clark, R. M., Fahlgren, N., Fawcett, J. A., Grimwood, J., Gundlach, H., et al. (2011) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.807 · Cited by 872
De novo assembly, annotation, and comparative analysis of 26 diverse maize genomes
Hufford, M. B., Seetharam, A. S., Woodhouse, M. R., Chougule, K. M., Ou, S., Liu, J., Ricci, W. A., Guo, T., Olson, A., Qiu, Y., et al. (2021) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abg5289 · Cited by 747
Self-citationDifferentiation 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
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Woodhouse, M. R., Schnable, J. C., Pedersen, B. S., Lyons, E., Lisch, D., Subramaniam, S., & Freeling, M.
- Venue
- PLoS Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2010-06-29
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e1000409
- ISSN
- 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-7885
- OpenAlex
- W2022580310
- Cited by
- 325
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 24.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Following Tetraploidy in Maize, a Short Deletion Mechanism Removed Genes Preferentially from One of the Two Homeologs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000409
- The paper
- Woodhouse, M. R., Schnable, J. C., Pedersen, B. S., Lyons, E., Lisch, D., Subramaniam, S., & Freeling, M. (2010). Following Tetraploidy in Maize, a Short Deletion Mechanism Removed Genes Preferentially from One of the Two Homeologs. PLoS Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000409
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.