Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35042803›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2022

Green plant genomes: What we know in an era of rapidly expanding opportunities.

W John Kress, Douglas E Soltis, Paul J Kersey, Jill L Wegrzyn, James H Leebens-Mack, Morgan R Gostel, Xin Liu, Pamela S Soltis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

75 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Ancient wheat DNA: How and what for?Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

15 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

8 authors.

W John KressNational Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Department of Botany, Washington, DC 20013-7012; kressj@si.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0140-5267
Douglas E SoltisFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.ORCID 0000-0001-8638-4137
Paul J KerseyRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AE, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7054-800X
Jill L WegrzynDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Institute for Systems Genomics: Computational Biology Core, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-3214.ORCID 0000-0001-5923-0888
James H Leebens-MackDepartment of Plant Biology, 2101 Miller Plant Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7271.
Morgan R GostelBotanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth, TX 76107-3400.ORCID 0000-0002-3169-627X
Xin LiuChina National GeneBank, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen 518120, China.
Pamela S SoltisFlorida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.ORCID 0000-0001-9310-8659

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Green plants play a fundamental role in ecosystems, human health, and agriculture. As de novo genomes are being generated for all known eukaryotic species as advocated by the Earth BioGenome Project, increasing genomic information on green land plants is essential. However, setting standards for the generation and storage of the complex set of genomes that characterize the green lineage of life is a major challenge for plant scientists. Such standards will need to accommodate the immense variation in green plant genome size, transposable element content, and structural complexity while enabling research into the molecular and evolutionary processes that have resulted in this enormous genomic variation. Here we provide an overview and assessment of the current state of knowledge of green plant genomes. To date fewer than 300 complete chromosome-scale genome assemblies representing fewer than 900 species have been generated across the estimated 450,000 to 500,000 species in the green plant clade. These genomes range in size from 12 Mb to 27.6 Gb and are biased toward agricultural crops with large branches of the green tree of life untouched by genomic-scale sequencing. Locating suitable tissue samples of most species of plants, especially those taxa from extreme environments, remains one of the biggest hurdles to increasing our genomic inventory. Furthermore, the annotation of plant genomes is at present undergoing intensive improvement. It is our hope that this fresh overview will help in the development of genomic quality standards for a cohesive and meaningful synthesis of green plant genomes as we scale up for the future.

Indexed as

Base SequenceBiodiversityBiological EvolutionDNA Transposable ElementsEcologyEcosystemEmbryophytaEvolution, MolecularGenomeGenome, PlantGenomicsInformation DisseminationInformation Storage and RetrievalPhylogenyPlantsViridiplantaeDNA Transposable Elementsannotationreference genometranscriptomesViridiplantaewhole-genome duplication (WGD)

Identifiers

PMID35042803
PMCPMC8795535

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.