4.2 Article

Animal chromosome counts reveal a similar range of chromosome numbers but with less polyploidy in animals compared to flowering plants

Journal

JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Volume 34, Issue 8, Pages 1333-1339

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.13884

Keywords

Animalia; chromosome counts; database; diploid numbers; haploid numbers; karyotype; Metazoa

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Understanding the mechanisms behind chromosome evolution can provide insights into lineage origin, persistence, and evolutionary tempo. A database of chromosome counts for animals was presented, showing similarities in distribution with flowering plants, though driven by different factors. Animals and plants exhibit similar frequencies of speciation-related changes in chromosome number, but plant speciation is more often associated with changes in ploidy.
Understanding the mechanisms that underlie chromosome evolution could provide insights into the processes underpinning the origin, persistence and evolutionary tempo of lineages. Here, we present the first database of chromosome counts for animals (the Animal Chromosome Count database, ACC) summarizing chromosome numbers for similar to 15,000 species. We found remarkable a similarity in the distribution of chromosome counts between animals and flowering plants. Nevertheless, the similarity in the distribution of chromosome numbers between animals and plants is likely to be explained by different drivers. For instance, we found that while animals and flowering plants exhibit similar frequencies of speciation-related changes in chromosome number, plant speciation is more often related to changes in ploidy. By leveraging the largest data set of chromosome counts for animals, we describe a previously undocumented pattern across the Tree of Life-animals and flowering plants show remarkably similar distributions of haploid chromosome numbers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available