| Title |
Genome sizes of 227 accessions of Gagea (Liliaceae) discriminate between the species from the Netherlands and reveal new ploidies in Gagea
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-015-1167-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B J M Zonneveld, B te Linde, L-J van den Berg |
| Abstract |
Nuclear genome size, as measured by flow cytometry with propidium iodide, was used to investigate the relationships within the genus Gagea (Liliaceae), mainly from the Netherlands. The basic chromosome number for Gagea is x = 12. The inferred ploidy in the Dutch and German accessions varies from diploid to decaploid. Consequently there is a large range of genome sizes (DNA 2C-values) from 14.9 to 75.1 pg. Genome sizes are evaluated here in combination with the results of morphological observations. Five species and the hybrid G. × megapolitana are reported. Apart from 14 diploid G. villosa, six plants of G. villosa with an inferred tetraploidy were found. For the 186 Dutch accessions investigated 85 turned out to be the largely sterile G. pratensis (inferred to be pentaploid). Inferred tetraploid and hexaploid G. pratensis were found in 30 and 20 localities, respectively. In one locality an inferred decaploid (10×) plant was found that could represent a doubled pentaploid G. pratensis. An inferred decaploid G. pratensis was never reported before. The genome size of Gagea × megapolitana from Germany fitted with its origin as a cross between the two hexaploids G. pratensis and G. lutea. Gagea spathacea from the Netherlands was inferred to be nonaploid as was recorded from plants across Europe. The aim of the study was to use flow cytometry as a tool to elucidate the taxonomic position of the Dutch Gagea. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 33% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 17% |
| Researcher | 1 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 33% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 17% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2021.
All research outputs
#4,665,740
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#294
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,953
of 264,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#22
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.