Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26061193›Full record

ArticleThe New phytologist2015

Analysis of the giant genomes of Fritillaria (Liliaceae) indicates that a lack of DNA removal characterizes extreme expansions in genome size.

Laura J Kelly, Simon Renny-Byfield, Jaume Pellicer, Jiří Macas, Petr Novák, Pavel Neumann, Martin A Lysak, Peter D Day, Madeleine Berger, Michael F Fay and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The New phytologist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed
27.4field-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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 150 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Chromosome-scale assembly of the giantInnovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. DisentanglingBiology · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

20 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

13 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Laura J KellySchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK.
Simon Renny-ByfieldSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK.
Jaume PellicerJodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, TW9 3DS, UK.
Jiří MacasBiology Centre CAS, Institute of Plant Molecular Biology, CZ-37005, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Petr NovákBiology Centre CAS, Institute of Plant Molecular Biology, CZ-37005, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Pavel NeumannBiology Centre CAS, Institute of Plant Molecular Biology, CZ-37005, České Budějovice, Czech Republic.
Martin A LysakPlant Cytogenomics Research Group, CEITEC - Central European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, CZ-62500, Brno, Czech Republic.
Peter D DaySchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK.
Madeleine BergerJodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, TW9 3DS, UK.
Michael F FayJodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, TW9 3DS, UK.
Richard A NicholsSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK.
Andrew R LeitchSchool of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK.
Ilia J LeitchJodrell Laboratory, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, TW9 3DS, UK.
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBCzech Academy of Sciences, Biology Centre · CZCentral European Institute of Technology · CZInstitute of Plant Molecular Biology · CZRothamsted Research · GBUniversity of California, Davis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants exhibit an extraordinary range of genome sizes, varying by > 2000-fold between the smallest and largest recorded values. In the absence of polyploidy, changes in the amount of repetitive DNA (transposable elements and tandem repeats) are primarily responsible for genome size differences between species. However, there is ongoing debate regarding the relative importance of amplification of repetitive DNA versus its deletion in governing genome size. Using data from 454 sequencing, we analysed the most repetitive fraction of some of the largest known genomes for diploid plant species, from members of Fritillaria. We revealed that genomic expansion has not resulted from the recent massive amplification of just a handful of repeat families, as shown in species with smaller genomes. Instead, the bulk of these immense genomes is composed of highly heterogeneous, relatively low-abundance repeat-derived DNA, supporting a scenario where amplified repeats continually accumulate due to infrequent DNA removal. Our results indicate that a lack of deletion and low turnover of repetitive DNA are major contributors to the evolution of extremely large genomes and show that their size cannot simply be accounted for by the activity of a small number of high-abundance repeat families.

Indexed as

Genome, PlantGenome SizeDNA, PlantFritillariaGene DeletionMolecular Sequence DataRepetitive Sequences, Nucleic AcidDNA, PlantDNA deletionFritillariagenome size evolutiongenome turnoverLiliaceaerepetitive DNAtransposable elements (TEs)

Identifiers

PMID26061193
PMCPMC4744688
OpenAlexW2100295916

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.