Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25780758›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2015

Comparative genomics and phylogenetic discordance of cultivated tomato and close wild relatives.

Susan R Strickler, Aureliano Bombarely, Jesse D Munkvold, Thomas York, Naama Menda, Gregory B Martin, Lukas A Mueller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Plant direct · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Linkage between the I-3 gene for resistance to Fusarium wilt race 3 and increased sensitivity to bacterial spot in tomato.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors.

Susan R StricklerBoyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research , Ithaca, NY , USA.
Aureliano BombarelyDepartment of Horticulture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University , Blacksburg, VA , USA.
Jesse D MunkvoldBoyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research , Ithaca, NY , USA.
Thomas YorkBoyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research , Ithaca, NY , USA.
Naama MendaBoyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research , Ithaca, NY , USA.
Gregory B MartinBoyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research , Ithaca, NY , USA ; Department of Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology, Cornell University , Ithaca, NY , USA.
Lukas A MuellerBoyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research , Ithaca, NY , USA.

Funding

Transgenic Mouse and Biobank CoreP01CA095616 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI DEPINHO, RONALD ANTHONY · 2003 to 2012
$20.3M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA095616
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. Studies of ancestry are difficult in the tomato because it crosses with many wild relatives and species in the tomato clade that have diverged very recently. As a result, the phylogeny in relation to its closest relatives remains uncertain. By using the coding sequence from Solanum lycopersicum, S. galapagense, S. pimpinellifolium, S. corneliomuelleri, and S. tuberosum and the genomic sequence from S. lycopersicum 'Heinz', an heirloom line, S. lycopersicum 'Yellow Pear', and two of cultivated tomato's closest relatives, S. galapagense and S. pimpinellifolium, we have aimed to resolve the phylogenies of these closely related species as well as identify phylogenetic discordance in the reference cultivated tomato. Results. Divergence date estimates suggest that the divergence of S. lycopersicum, S. galapagense, and S. pimpinellifolium happened less than 0.5 MYA. Phylogenies based on 8,857 coding sequences support grouping of S. lycopersicum and S. galapagense, although two secondary trees are also highly represented. A total of 25 genes in our analysis had sites with evidence of positive selection along the S. lycopersicum lineage. Whole genome phylogenies showed that while incongruence is prevalent in genomic comparisons between these genotypes, likely as a result of introgression and incomplete lineage sorting, a primary phylogenetic history was strongly supported. Conclusions. Based on analysis of these genotypes, S. galapagense appears to be closely related to S. lycopersicum, suggesting they had a common ancestor prior to the arrival of an S. galapagense ancestor to the Galápagos Islands, but after divergence of the sequenced S. pimpinellifolium. Genes showing selection along the S. lycopersicum lineage may be important in domestication or selection occurring post-domestication. Further analysis of intraspecific data in these species will help to establish the evolutionary history of cultivated tomato. The use of an heirloom line is helpful in deducing true phylogenetic information of S. lycopersicum and identifying regions of introgression from wild species.

Indexed as

GenomeIncomplete lineage sortingIntrogressionPhylogenySelectionSolanumTomato

Identifiers

PMID25780758
PMCPMC4358695

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.