The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Doubling down on genomes: Polyploidy and crop plants
Abstract
Polyploidy, or whole genome multiplication, is ubiquitous among angiosperms. Many crop species are relatively recent allopolyploids, resulting from interspecific hybridization and polyploidy. Thus, an appreciation of the evolutionary consequences of (allo)polyploidy is central to our understanding of crop plant domestication, agricultural improvement, and the evolution of angiosperms in general. Indeed, many recent insights into plant biology have been gleaned from polyploid crops, including, but not limited to wheat, tobacco, sugarcane, apple, and cotton. A multitude of evolutionary processes affect polyploid genomes, including rapid and substantial genome reorganization, transgressive gene expression alterations, gene fractionation, gene conversion, genome downsizing, and sub‐ and neofunctionalization of duplicate genes. Often these genomic changes are accompanied by heterosis, robustness, and the improvement of crop yield, relative to closely related diploids. Historically, however, the genome‐wide analysis of polyploid crops has lagged behind those of diploid crops and other model organisms. This lag is partly due to the difficulties in genome assembly, resulting from the genomic complexities induced by combining two or more evolutionarily diverged genomes into a single nucleus and by the significant size of polyploid genomes. In this review, we explore the role of polyploidy in angiosperm evolution, the domestication process and crop improvement. We focus on the potential of modern technologies, particularly next‐generation sequencing, to inform us on the patterns and processes governing polyploid crop improvement and phenotypic change subsequent to domestication.
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
Personal genomes: The case of the missing heritability
Maher, B. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/456018a · Cited by 1,737
A Recent Polyploidy Superimposed on Older Large-Scale Duplications in the Arabidopsis Genome
Blanc, G., Hokamp, K., & Wolfe, K. H. (2003) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.751803 · Cited by 724
Cited by
Nakatani, Y., Shingate, P., Ravi, V., Pillai, N. E., Prasad, A., McLysaght, A., & Venkatesh, B. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-24573-z · Cited by 151
Genetic Variation and Unintended Risk in the Context of Old and New Breeding Techniques
Singer, S. D., Laurie, J. D., Bilichak, A., Kumar, S., & Singh, J. (2021) · Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences · doi:10.1080/07352689.2021.1883826 · Cited by 77
Differential expansion and retention patterns of LRR‐RLK genes across plant evolution
Kileeg, Z., Haldar, A., Khan, H., Qamar, A., & Mott, G. A. (2023) · Plant Direct · doi:10.1002/pld3.556 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Renny‐Byfield, S., & Wendel, J. F.
- Venue
- American Journal of Botany
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-10
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1711-1725
- ISSN
- 0002-9122 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-2197
- OpenAlex
- W2084092640
- Cited by
- 406
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 31.00
- 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
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.