Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24958926›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2014

Tangled up in two: a burst of genome duplications at the end of the Cretaceous and the consequences for plant evolution.

Kevin Vanneste, Steven Maere, Yves Van de Peer

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed
35.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 172 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Horticulture research · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. The genome of the king protea, Protea cynaroides.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

13 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kevin VannesteDepartment of Plant Systems Biology, VIB, 9052 Ghent, Belgium Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Ghent University, 9052 Ghent, Belgium.
Steven MaereDepartment of Plant Systems Biology, VIB, 9052 Ghent, Belgium Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Ghent University, 9052 Ghent, Belgium.
Yves Van de PeerDepartment of Plant Systems Biology, VIB, 9052 Ghent, Belgium Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Ghent University, 9052 Ghent, Belgium Genomics Research Institute (GRI), University of Pretoria, 0028 Pretoria, South Africa yves.vandepeer@psb.vib-ugent.be.
Ghent University · BEUniversity of Pretoria · ZAVIB-UGent Center for Plant Systems Biology · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome sequencing has demonstrated that besides frequent small-scale duplications, large-scale duplication events such as whole genome duplications (WGDs) are found on many branches of the evolutionary tree of life. Especially in the plant lineage, there is evidence for recurrent WGDs, and the ancestor of all angiosperms was in fact most likely a polyploid species. The number of WGDs found in sequenced plant genomes allows us to investigate questions about the roles of WGDs that were hitherto impossible to address. An intriguing observation is that many plant WGDs seem associated with periods of increased environmental stress and/or fluctuations, a trend that is evident for both present-day polyploids and palaeopolyploids formed around the Cretaceous-Palaeogene (K-Pg) extinction at 66 Ma. Here, we revisit the WGDs in plants that mark the K-Pg boundary, and discuss some specific examples of biological innovations and/or diversifications that may be linked to these WGDs. We review evidence for the processes that could have contributed to increased polyploid establishment at the K-Pg boundary, and discuss the implications on subsequent plant evolution in the Cenozoic.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionEnvironmentHybridization, GeneticPolyploidyGenome, PlantPaleontologyPlantsextinction eventinnovationK–Pg boundaryplant evolutionspeciationwhole genome duplication

Identifiers

PMID24958926
PMCPMC4071526
OpenAlexW2129254039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.