4.5 Article

Testing the association of phenotypes with polyploidy: An example using herbaceous and woody eudicots

Journal

EVOLUTION
Volume 71, Issue 5, Pages 1138-1148

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/evo.13226

Keywords

Chromosome number; evolution; herbaceous; models; polyploidy; woody

Funding

  1. NSF [DDIG DEB-1501547, DEB-1208912]
  2. Division Of Environmental Biology
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1208912] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1208428, 1501547] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although numerous studies have surveyed the frequency with which different plant characters are associated with polyploidy, few statistical tools are available to identify the factors that potentially facilitate polyploidy. We describe a new probabilistic model, BiChroM, designed to associate the frequency of polyploidy and chromosomal change with a binary phenotypic character in a phylogeny. BiChroM provides a robust statistical framework for testing differences in rates of polyploidy associated with phenotypic characters along a phylogeny while simultaneously allowing for evolutionary transitions between character states. We used BiChroM to test whether polyploidy is more frequent in woody or herbaceous plants, based on tree with 4711 eudicot species. Although polyploidy occurs in woody species, rates of chromosome doubling were over six times higher in herbaceous species. Rates of single chromosome increases or decreases were also far higher in herbaceous than woody species. Simulation experiments indicate that BiChroM performs well with little to no bias and relatively little variance at a wide range of tree depths when trees have at least 500 taxa. Thus, BiChroM provides a first step toward a rigorous statistical framework for assessing the traits that facilitate polyploidy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available