ArticleGenome biology and evolution2017
Transcriptome Signatures of Selection, Drift, Introgression, and Gene Duplication in the Evolution of an Extremophile Endemic Plant.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing ecological and evolutionary research in Arabidopsis: Extending insights into model and nonmodel plants.The Plant cell · 2025Review
- Plastomic studies inform the mechanisms of edaphic adaptation in North American species in the tribe Thelypodieae (Brassicaceae).American journal of botany · 2025Article
- Lessons from Extremophiles: Functional Adaptations and Genomic Innovations across the Eukaryotic Tree of Life.Genome biology and evolution · 2024Article
- High-resolution Hi-C maps highlight multiscale chromatin architecture reorganization during cold stress in Brachypodium distachyon.BMC plant biology · 2023Article
- Evolutionary Analysis of thePlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Development of 15 microsatellite loci in the endangeredApplications in plant sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Plants on serpentine soils provide extreme examples of adaptation to environment, and thus offer excellent models for the study of evolution at the molecular and genomic level. Serpentine outcrops are derived from ultramafic rock and have extremely low levels of essential plant nutrients (e.g., N, P, K, and Ca), as well as toxic levels of heavy metals (e.g., Ni, Cr, and Co) and low moisture availability. These outcrops provide habitat to a number of endemic plant species, including the annual mustard Caulanthus amplexicaulis var. barbarae (Cab) (Brassicaceae). Its sister taxon, C. amplexicaulis var. amplexicaulis (Caa), is intolerant to serpentine soils. Here, we assembled and annotated comprehensive reference transcriptomes of both Caa and Cab for use in protein coding sequence comparisons. A set of 29,443 reciprocal best Blast hit (RBH) orthologs between Caa and Cab was compared with identify coding sequence variants, revealing a high genome-wide dN/dS ratio between the two taxa (mean = 0.346). We show that elevated dN/dS likely results from the composite effects of genetic drift, positive selection, and the relaxation of negative selection. Further, analysis of paralogs within each taxon revealed the signature of a period of elevated gene duplication (∼10 Ma) that is shared with other species of the tribe Thelypodieae, and may have played a role in the striking morphological and ecological diversity of this tribe. In addition, distribution of the synonymous substitution rate, dS, is strongly bimodal, indicating a history of reticulate evolution that may have contributed to serpentine adaptation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.