4.3 Article

Evolutionary Relationships Among Barley and Arabidopsis Core Circadian Clock and Clock-Associated Genes

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR EVOLUTION
Volume 80, Issue 2, Pages 108-119

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00239-015-9665-0

Keywords

Arabidopsis thaliana; Hordeum vulgare (barley); Circadian clock; Reciprocal BLAST; Homologue

Funding

  1. James Hutton Institute, University of Dundee
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) [BB/K006568/1]
  3. studentship programme Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) of the Brazilian Government
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/K006568/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. BBSRC [BB/K006568/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The circadian clock regulates a multitude of plant developmental and metabolic processes. In crop species, it contributes significantly to plant performance and productivity and to the adaptation and geographical range over which crops can be grown. To understand the clock in barley and how it relates to the components in the Arabidopsis thaliana clock, we have performed a systematic analysis of core circadian clock and clock-associated genes in barley, Arabidopsis and another eight species including tomato, potato, a range of monocotyledonous species and the moss, Physcomitrella patens. We have identified orthologues and paralogues of Arabidopsis genes which are conserved in all species, monocot/dicot differences, species-specific differences and variation in gene copy number (e.g. gene duplications among the various species). We propose that the common ancestor of barley and Arabidopsis had two-thirds of the key clock components identified in Arabidopsis prior to the separation of the monocot/dicot groups. After this separation, multiple independent gene duplication events took place in both monocot and dicot ancestors.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available