Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 325

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 access
Woodhouse, Margaret R., Schnable, James C., Pedersen, Brent S., Lyons, Eric, Lisch, Damon, Subramaniam, Shabarinath, Freeling, Michael·2010·PLoS Biology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000409

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 325

Metadata

Authors
Woodhouse, M. R., Schnable, J. C., Pedersen, B. S., Lyons, E., Lisch, D., Subramaniam, S., & Freeling, M.
Venue
PLoS Biology
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.