Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15596463›Full record

ReviewAnnals of botany2005

The C-value enigma in plants and animals: a review of parallels and an appeal for partnership.

T Ryan Gregory

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of botany, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

83 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Genome size estimation and evolution trends in Acari.Experimental & applied acarology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Long-read genome assemblies for the study of chromosome expansion:bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  15. Genome size variation withinEcology and evolution · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

T Ryan GregoryDepartment of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UK. rgregory@genomesize.com

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsPlants and animals represent the first two kingdoms recognized, and remain the two best-studied groups in terms of nuclear DNA content variation. Unfortunately, the traditional chasm between botanists and zoologists has done much to prevent an integrated approach to resolving the C-value enigma, the long-standing puzzle surrounding the evolution of genome size. This grand division is both unnecessary and counterproductive, and the present review aims to illustrate the numerous links between the patterns and processes found in plants and animals so that a stronger unity can be developed in the future. SCOPE: This review discusses the numerous parallels that exist in genome size evolution between plants and animals, including (i) the construction of large databases, (ii) the patterns of DNA content variation among taxa, (iii) the cytological, morphological, physiological and evolutionary impacts of genome size, (iv) the mechanisms by which genomes change in size, and (v) the development of new methodologies for estimating DNA contents.

conclusionsThe fundamental questions of the C-value enigma clearly transcend taxonomic boundaries, and increased communication is therefore urged among those who study genome size evolution, whether in plants, animals or other organisms.

Indexed as

GenomeGenome, PlantAnimalsCell SizeDatabases, GeneticDNAPlantsPolyploidySpecies SpecificityDNA

Identifiers

PMID15596463
PMCPMC4246714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.