4.7 Article

Constraining the timing of whole genome duplication in plant evolutionary history

Journal

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2017.0912

Keywords

genome duplication; plant evolution; polyploidy; molecular clock

Funding

  1. Biotechnology and Biosciences Research Council (UK) [BB/N000609/1, BB/N000919/1]
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/N002067/1]
  3. Royal Society
  4. Wolfson Foundation
  5. BBSRC [BB/N000609/1, BB/J00538X/1, BB/N000919/1, BB/G006660/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. NERC [NE/N003438/1, NE/N002067/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G006660/1, BB/N000919/1, BB/J00538X/1, 1563670, BB/N000609/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  8. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/C509974/1, NE/N003438/1, NE/N002067/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Whole genome duplication (WGD) has occurred in many lineages within the tree of life and is invariably invoked as causal to evolutionary innovation, increased diversity, and extinction resistance. Testing such hypotheses is problematic, not least since the timing of WGD events has proven hard to constrain. Here we show that WGD events can be dated through molecular clock analysis of concatenated gene families, calibrated using fossil evidence for the ages of species divergences that bracket WGD events. We apply this approach to dating the two major genome duplication events shared by all seed plants (zeta) and flowering plants (epsilon), estimating the seed plant WGD event at 399-381 Ma, and the angiosperm WGD event at 319-297 Ma. These events thus took place early in the stem of both lineages, precluding hypotheses of WGD conferring extinction resistance, driving dramatic increases in innovation and diversity, but corroborating and qualifying the more permissive hypothesis of a 'lag-time' in realizing the effects of WGD in plant evolution.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available