The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of whole chloroplast genome sequences to choose noncoding regions for phylogenetic studies in angiosperms: the tortoise and the hare III
Abstract
Although the chloroplast genome contains many noncoding regions, relatively few have been exploited for interspecific phylogenetic and intraspecific phylogeographic studies. In our recent evaluation of the phylogenetic utility of 21 noncoding chloroplast regions, we found the most widely used noncoding regions are among the least variable, but the more variable regions have rarely been employed. That study led us to conclude that there may be unexplored regions of the chloroplast genome that have even higher relative levels of variability. To explore the potential variability of previously unexplored regions, we compared three pairs of single‐copy chloroplast genome sequences in three disparate angiosperm lineages: Atropa vs. Nicotiana (asterids); Lotus vs. Medicago (rosids); and Saccharum vs. Oryza (monocots). These three separate sequence alignments highlighted 13 mutational hotspots that may be more variable than the best regions of our former study. These 13 regions were then selected for a more detailed analysis. Here we show that nine of these newly explored regions (rpl32‐trnL(UAG), trnQ(UUG)‐5′rps16, 3′trnV(UAC)‐ndhC, ndhF‐rpl32, psbD‐trnT(GGU), psbJ‐petA, 3′rps16–5′trnK(UUU), atpI‐atpH, and petL‐psbE) offer levels of variation better than the best regions identified in our earlier study and are therefore likely to be the best choices for molecular studies at low taxonomic levels.
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
Cited by
The chloroplast genome: a review
Dobrogojski, J., Adamiec, M., & Luciński, R. (2020) · Acta Physiologiae Plantarum · doi:10.1007/s11738-020-03089-x · Cited by 312
Root microbiome relates to plant host evolution in maize and other Poaceae
Bouffaud, M., Poirier, M., Muller, D., & Moënne‐Loccoz, Y. (2014) · Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1111/1462-2920.12442 · Cited by 274
Natural Hybrids and Gene Flow between Upland and Lowland Switchgrass
Zhang, Y., Zalapa, J., Jakubowski, A. R., Price, D. L., Acharya, A., Wei, Y., Brummer, E. C., Kaeppler, S. M., & Casler, M. D. (2011) · Crop Science · doi:10.2135/cropsci2011.02.0104 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- Authors
- Shaw, J., Lickey, E. B., Schilling, E. E., & Small, R. L.
- Venue
- American Journal of Botany
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-03
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 275-288
- ISSN
- 0002-9122 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-2197
- OpenAlex
- W2133559537
- Cited by
- 2,177
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 52.96
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of whole chloroplast genome sequences to choose noncoding regions for phylogenetic studies in angiosperms: the tortoise and the hare III. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3732/ajb.94.3.275
- The paper
- Shaw, J., Lickey, E. B., Schilling, E. E., & Small, R. L. (2007). Comparison of whole chloroplast genome sequences to choose noncoding regions for phylogenetic studies in angiosperms: the tortoise and the hare III. American Journal of Botany. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.94.3.275
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.