2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01102.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chromosomal fission accounts for small-scale radiations in Zamia (Zamiaceae; Cycadales)

Abstract: Zamia is unique among Cycadales in its diversity of morphology, ecology and chromosome numbers. The chromosome numbers in Zamia range from 16 to 28, excluding 20, manifest as both interspecific and intraspecific series. It has long been recognized that Robertsonian transformations (chromosomal fission or fusion) probably dominate karyotype evolution in Zamiaceae, although it has been debated whether chromosome numbers are increasing or decreasing. We re-analyse published karyotypes of Zamia spp., relating both… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
(97 reference statements)
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the common acro‐ and telocentric chromosomes that prevail in the karyotypes of several plant groups, were traditionally interpreted as having resulted from chromosome fission events (see Jones, ). Indeed, when karyomorphological data are plotted on phylogenetic trees, fission events seem to occur, for example, during genome evolution in cycads (Olson and Gorelick, ), Crocus (Brighton, ), the slipper orchids (Cox et al ., ), Lycoris (Shi et al ., ) or in the classical example of Campanula persicifolia (Darlington and La Cour, ). Whereas these fission events in plants were deduced only from chromosome numbers, chromosome morphology and/or meiotic pairing configurations (Jones, ), data on the molecular mechanism of centric fissions as well as on the detailed genomic composition of metacentric chromosomes and their telocentric derivatives are scarce.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the common acro‐ and telocentric chromosomes that prevail in the karyotypes of several plant groups, were traditionally interpreted as having resulted from chromosome fission events (see Jones, ). Indeed, when karyomorphological data are plotted on phylogenetic trees, fission events seem to occur, for example, during genome evolution in cycads (Olson and Gorelick, ), Crocus (Brighton, ), the slipper orchids (Cox et al ., ), Lycoris (Shi et al ., ) or in the classical example of Campanula persicifolia (Darlington and La Cour, ). Whereas these fission events in plants were deduced only from chromosome numbers, chromosome morphology and/or meiotic pairing configurations (Jones, ), data on the molecular mechanism of centric fissions as well as on the detailed genomic composition of metacentric chromosomes and their telocentric derivatives are scarce.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It will be interesting to determine chromosomal position of rDNA in other species in order to see whether the (sub)telomeric locations are favoured by the L-type arrays. It is also an open question of whether inversions, fusions (Olson and Gorelick, 2011) and other fundamental changes in chromosome structure (Leitch and Leitch, 2012) that accompany the long (300 Myrs) history of gymnosperm evolution contribute to switches in rDNA arrangements.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such centromere repositioning events, accompanied by a shift in the centromere-associated tandem DNA repeat, appear to have been important in chromosome number evolution within the cucurbits (Han et al, 2009). Nonetheless, polyploidy has been concluded to be the major source of chromosome number increases in plants (Jones, 1998), except in a few odd lineages such as Zamia (Olson and Gorelick, 2011), slipper orchids (Cox et al, 1998) and sedges (Chung et al, 2012). In sedges, which have holocentric chromosomes, fission may be common in part because the lack of localized centromeres allows breakage anywhere along a chromosome with relatively low risks of meiotic dysfunction (Chung et al, 2012).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%