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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Ohno, S. (1970) · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-86659-3 · Cited by 7,833
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
The B73 Maize Genome: Complexity, Diversity, and Dynamics
Schnable, P. S., Ware, D., Fulton, R. S., Stein, J. C., Wei, F., Pasternak, S., Liang, C., Zhang, J., Fulton, L., Graves, T. A., et al. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1178534 · Cited by 4,046
The Sorghum bicolor genome and the diversification of grasses
Paterson, A. H., Bowers, J. E., Bruggmann, R., Dubchak, I., Grimwood, J., Gundlach, H., Haberer, G., Hellsten, U., Mitros, T., Poliakov, A., et al. (2009) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature07723 · Cited by 3,096
Chromosomal evolution in higher plants
Stebbins, G. L. (1971) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,074
Variation and Evolution in Plants
Stebbins, G. L. (1950) · doi:10.7312/steb94536 · Cited by 2,704
ENVIRONMENTAL NICHE EQUIVALENCY VERSUS CONSERVATISM: QUANTITATIVE APPROACHES TO NICHE EVOLUTION
Warren, D. L., Glor, R. E., & Turelli, M. (2008) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00482.x · Cited by 2,663
The Significance of Responses of the Genome to Challenge
McClintock, B. (1984) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.15739260 · Cited by 2,617
Early allopolyploid evolution in the post-Neolithic Brassica napus oilseed genome
Chalhoub, B., Denoeud, F., Liu, S., Parkin, I. A. P., Tang, H., Wang, X., Chiquet, J., Belcram, H., Tong, C., Samans, B., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1253435 · Cited by 2,479
Ancestral polyploidy in seed plants and angiosperms
Jiao, Y., Wickett, N. J., Ayyampalayam, S., Chanderbali, A. S., Landherr, L., Ralph, P. E., Tomsho, L. P., Hu, Y., Liang, H., Soltis, P. S., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09916 · Cited by 2,226
Self-citation
Cited by
Polyploidy and genome evolution in plants
Soltis, P. S., Marchant, D. B., Van de Peer, Y., & Soltis, D. E. (2015) · Current Opinion in Genetics & Development · doi:10.1016/j.gde.2015.11.003 · Cited by 773
Self-citationPolyploidy: an evolutionary and ecological force in stressful times
Van de Peer, Y., Ashman, T.-L., Soltis, P. S., & Soltis, D. E. (2021) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1093/plcell/koaa015 · Cited by 732
Self-citationAlix, K., Gérard, P. R., Schwarzacher, T., & Heslop-Harrison, J. S. (. (2017) · Annals of Botany · doi:10.1093/aob/mcx079 · Cited by 420
Gene retention, fractionation and subgenome differences in polyploid plants
Cheng, F., Wu, J., Cai, X., Liang, J., Freeling, M., & Wang, X. (2018) · Nature Plants · doi:10.1038/s41477-018-0136-7 · Cited by 398
Polyploidy, the Nucleotype, and Novelty: The Impact of Genome Doubling on the Biology of the Cell
Doyle, J. J., & Coate, J. E. (2019) · International Journal of Plant Sciences · doi:10.1086/700636 · Cited by 365
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.