ArticleBMC plant biology2024
First insight into the genomes of the Pulmonaria officinalis group (Boraginaceae) provided by repeatome analysis and comparative karyotyping.
Article in BMC plant biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Thriving or Withering? Plant Molecular Cytogenetics in the First Quarter of the 21st Century.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Repeatome Analysis and Satellite DNA Chromosome Patterns inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe genus Pulmonaria (Boraginaceae) represents a taxonomically complex group of species in which morphological similarity contrasts with striking karyological variation. The presence of different numbers of chromosomes in the diploid state suggests multiple hybridization/polyploidization events followed by chromosome rearrangements (dysploidy). Unfortunately, the phylogenetic relationships and evolution of the genome, have not yet been elucidated. Our study focused on the P. officinalis group, the most widespread species complex, which includes two morphologically similar species that differ in chromosome number, i.e. P. obscura (2n = 14) and P. officinalis (2n = 16). Ornamental cultivars, morphologically similar to P. officinalis (garden escapes), whose origin is unclear, were also studied. Here, we present a pilot study on genome size and repeatome dynamics of these closely related species in order to gain new information on their genome and chromosome structure.
resultsFlow cytometry confirmed a significant difference in genome size between P. obscura and P. officinalis, corresponding to the number of chromosomes. Genome-wide repeatome analysis performed on genome skimming data showed that retrotransposons were the most abundant repeat type, with a higher proportion of Ty3/Gypsy elements, mainly represented by the Tekay lineage. Comparative analysis revealed no species-specific retrotransposons or striking differences in their copy number between the species. A new set of chromosome-specific cytogenetic markers, represented by satellite DNAs, showed that the chromosome structure in P. officinalis was more variable compared to that of P. obscura. Comparative karyotyping supported the hybrid origin of putative hybrids with 2n = 15 collected from a mixed population of both species and outlined the origin of ornamental garden escapes, presumably derived from the P. officinalis complex.
conclusionsLarge-scale genome size analysis and repeatome characterization of the two morphologically similar species of the P. officinalis group improved our knowledge of the genome dynamics and differences in the karyotype structure. A new set of chromosome-specific cytogenetic landmarks was identified and used to reveal the origin of putative hybrids and ornamental cultivars morphologically similar to P. officinalis.
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.