Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27053123›Full record

ReviewGenetics2016

Evolving Ideas on the Origin and Evolution of Flowers: New Perspectives in the Genomic Era.

Andre S Chanderbali, Brent A Berger, Dianella G Howarth, Pamela S Soltis, Douglas E Soltis

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
26.7field-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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. "Bud to bloom"-hormonal coordination in floral initiation.Plant biology (Stuttgart, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Overexpression ofActa biochimica et biophysica Sinica · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Tracing the Evolution of thePlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The genome of the endangeredPlant direct · 2021
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Andre S ChanderbaliFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611.
Brent A BergerDepartment of Biological Sciences, St. John's University, Queens, New York 11439.
Dianella G HowarthDepartment of Biological Sciences, St. John's University, Queens, New York 11439.
Pamela S SoltisFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 Genetics Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32610.
Douglas E SoltisFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 Genetics Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32610 dsoltis@ufl.edu.
Florida Museum of Natural History · USSt. John's University · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The origin of the flower was a key innovation in the history of complex organisms, dramatically altering Earth's biota. Advances in phylogenetics, developmental genetics, and genomics during the past 25 years have substantially advanced our understanding of the evolution of flowers, yet crucial aspects of floral evolution remain, such as the series of genetic and morphological changes that gave rise to the first flowers; the factors enabling the origin of the pentamerous eudicot flower, which characterizes ∼70% of all extant angiosperm species; and the role of gene and genome duplications in facilitating floral innovations. A key early concept was the ABC model of floral organ specification, developed by Elliott Meyerowitz and Enrico Coen and based on two model systems,Arabidopsis thalianaandAntirrhinum majus Yet it is now clear that these model systems are highly derived species, whose molecular genetic-developmental organization must be very different from that of ancestral, as well as early, angiosperms. In this article, we will discuss how new research approaches are illuminating the early events in floral evolution and the prospects for further progress. In particular, advancing the next generation of research in floral evolution will require the development of one or more functional model systems from among the basal angiosperms and basal eudicots. More broadly, we urge the development of "model clades" for genomic and evolutionary-developmental analyses, instead of the primary use of single "model organisms." We predict that new evolutionary models will soon emerge as genetic/genomic models, providing unprecedented new insights into floral evolution.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionEvolution, MolecularGenetic Association StudiesFlowersGenome, PlantGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMagnoliopsidaPhenotypePhylogenyPlant DevelopmentABC modelbasal angiospermsevo-devofading borders model: floral diversityflower evolutionPentapetalae

Identifiers

PMID27053123
PMCPMC4905540
OpenAlexW2331659262

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.