4.8 Article

Recent updates and developments to plant genome size databases

Journal

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
Volume 42, Issue D1, Pages D1159-D1166

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt1195

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
  2. Research Council of Norway [196468/V40]
  3. Spanish government [CGL2010-22234-C02-01, -02/BOS]
  4. Catalan government [2009SGR00439]
  5. Juan de la Cierva [JCI-2011-10124, JCI-2010-9432]
  6. Beatriu de Pinos [BP-2011-A-00292]
  7. Universitat de Barcelona [ADR-2011-38]
  8. Ministerio de Educacion of the Spanish government [AP2008-03441]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two plant genome size databases have been recently updated and/or extended: the Plant DNA C-values database (http://data.kew.org/cvalues), and GSAD, the Genome Size in Asteraceae database (http://www.asteraceaegenomesize.com). While the first provides information on nuclear DNA contents across land plants and some algal groups, the second is focused on one of the largest and most economically important angiosperm families, Asteraceae. Genome size data have numerous applications: they can be used in comparative studies on genome evolution, or as a tool to appraise the cost of whole-genome sequencing programs. The growing interest in genome size and increasing rate of data accumulation has necessitated the continued update of these databases. Currently, the Plant DNA C-values database (Release 6.0, Dec. 2012) contains data for 8510 species, while GSAD has 1219 species (Release 2.0, June 2013), representing increases of 17 and 51%, respectively, in the number of species with genome size data, compared with previous releases. Here we provide overviews of the most recent releases of each database, and outline new features of GSAD. The latter include (i) a tool to visually compare genome size data between species, (ii) the option to export data and (iii) a webpage containing information about flow cytometry protocols.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available