Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22639677›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2012

Escape from preferential retention following repeated whole genome duplications in plants.

James C Schnable, Xiaowu Wang, J Chris Pires, Michael Freeling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. A sorghum-anchored pan-grass syntenic gene set in grasses.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Evolution of the RNAPlant physiology · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Long-read sequencing uncovers the adaptive topography of a carnivorous plant genome.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

James C SchnableFreeling Lab, Plant and Microbial Biology, University of California - Berkeley Berkeley, CA, USA.
Xiaowu Wang
J Chris Pires
Michael Freeling

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The well supported gene dosage hypothesis predicts that genes encoding proteins engaged in dose-sensitive interactions cannot be reduced back to single copies once all interacting partners are simultaneously duplicated in a whole genome duplication. The genomes of extant flowering plants are the result of many sequential rounds of whole genome duplication, yet the fraction of genomes devoted to encoding complex molecular machines does not increase as fast as expected through multiple rounds of whole genome duplications. Using parallel interspecies genomic comparisons in the grasses and crucifers, we demonstrate that genes retained as duplicates following a whole genome duplication have only a 50% chance of being retained as duplicates in a second whole genome duplication. Genes which fractionated to a single copy following a second whole genome duplication tend to be the member of a gene pair with less complex promoters, lower levels of expression, and to be under lower levels of purifying selection. We suggest the copy with lower levels of expression and less purifying selection contributes less to effective gene-product dosage and therefore is under less dosage constraint in future whole genome duplications, providing an explanation for why flowering plant genomes are not overrun with subunits of large dose-sensitive protein complexes.

Indexed as

comparative genomicscrucifersgene dosagegene lossgenome evolutiongrassespolyploidy

Identifiers

PMID22639677
PMCPMC3355610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.