Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 320

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 212 of the 212 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Polyploidy: Pitfalls and paths to a paradigm

Open access
Soltis, Douglas E., Visger, Clayton J., Marchant, D. Blaine, Soltis, Pamela S.·2016·American Journal of Botany

Abstract

Investigators have long searched for a polyploidy paradigm—rules or principles that might be common following polyploidization (whole‐genome duplication, WGD). Here we attempt to integrate what is known across the more thoroughly investigated polyploid systems on topics ranging from genetics to ecology. We found that while certain rules may govern gene retention and loss, systems vary in the prevalence of gene silencing vs. homeolog loss, chromosomal change, the presence of a dominant genome (in allopolyploids), and the relative importance of hybridization vs. genome doubling per se. In some lineages, aspects of polyploidization are repeated across multiple origins, but in other species multiple origins behave more stochastically in terms of genetic and phenotypic change. Our investigation also reveals that the path to synthesis is hindered by numerous gaps in our knowledge of even the best‐known systems. Particularly concerning is the absence of linkage between genotype and phenotype. Moreover, most recent studies have focused on the genetic and genomic attributes of polyploidy, but rarely is there an ecological or physiological context. To promote a path to a polyploidy paradigm (or paradigms), we propose a major community goal over the next 10–20 yr to fill the gaps in our knowledge of well‐studied polyploids. Before a meaningful synthesis is possible, more complete data sets are needed for comparison—systems that include comparable genetic, genomic, chromosomal, proteomic, as well as morphological, physiological, and ecological data. Also needed are more natural evolutionary model systems, as most of what we know about polyploidy continues to come from a few crop and genetic models, systems that often lack the ecological context inherent in natural systems and necessary for understanding the drivers of biodiversity.

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 · 10.3732/ajb.1500501

Cites

212 of 212 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 212 references

Cited by

See all 320

Metadata

Authors
Soltis, D. E., Visger, C. J., Marchant, D. B., & Soltis, P. S.
Venue
American Journal of Botany
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-05-27
Volume
103
Issue
7
Pages
1146-1166
ISSN
  • 0002-9122 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-2197
OpenAlex
W2406319006
Cited by
320
References
212
FWCI
40.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Polyploidy: Pitfalls and paths to a paradigm. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3732/ajb.1500501
The paper
Soltis, D. E., Visger, C. J., Marchant, D. B., & Soltis, P. S. (2016). Polyploidy: Pitfalls and paths to a paradigm. American Journal of Botany. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1500501

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.