Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26894611›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in plant biology2016

Of dups and dinos: evolution at the K/Pg boundary.

Rolf Lohaus, Yves Van de Peer

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in plant biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
21.2field-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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rolf LohausDepartment of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Plant Systems Biology, VIB, Ghent, Belgium; Bioinformatics Institute Ghent, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Yves Van de PeerDepartment of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Plant Systems Biology, VIB, Ghent, Belgium; Bioinformatics Institute Ghent, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Genomics Research Institute, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. Electronic address: yves.vandepeer@psb.vib-ugent.be.
Ghent University · BEUniversity of Pretoria · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fifteen years into sequencing entire plant genomes, more than 30 paleopolyploidy events could be mapped on the tree of flowering plants (and many more when also transcriptome data sets are considered). While some genome duplications are very old and have occurred early in the evolution of dicots and monocots, or even before, others are more recent and seem to have occurred independently in many different plant lineages. Strikingly, a majority of these duplications date somewhere between 55 and 75 million years ago (mya), and thus likely correlate with the K/Pg boundary. If true, this would suggest that plants that had their genome duplicated at that time, had an increased chance to survive the most recent mass extinction event, at 66mya, which wiped out a majority of plant and animal life, including all non-avian dinosaurs. Here, we review several processes, both neutral and adaptive, that might explain the establishment of polyploid plants, following the K/Pg mass extinction.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionEvolution, MolecularGenome, PlantPhylogenyPlant ProteinsPolyploidyPlant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID26894611
OpenAlexW2283992213

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.