2020
DOI: 10.1086/706186
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Scaling of Genome Size and Cell Size Limits Maximum Rates of Photosynthesis with Implications for Ecological Strategies

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

7
169
5
2

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 119 publications
(183 citation statements)
references
References 115 publications
7
169
5
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In fact, we actually found a positive correlation between genome size and photosynthetic rate (Fig. 7), the opposite of what we would expect if genome size limited maximum photosynthetic rate per area as suggested in (Simonin and Roddy, 2018; Roddy et al, 2020).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In fact, we actually found a positive correlation between genome size and photosynthetic rate (Fig. 7), the opposite of what we would expect if genome size limited maximum photosynthetic rate per area as suggested in (Simonin and Roddy, 2018; Roddy et al, 2020).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 74%
“…Overall, we conclude that genome size and chromosome number are not strong drivers of ecophysiological evolution in Viburnum , and suspect that similar results will emerge in other lineages. As comparative analyses continue to increase in size and scope, patterns that emerge from these broadly sampled studies are often interpreted to be relevant at all scales, and often are referred to as the “major drivers” of evolution (Wright et al, 2004; Simonin and Roddy, 2018; Roddy et al, 2020). However, we have documented multiple cases in which global trait correlations do not hold up within individual smaller clades (Edwards, 2006; Edwards et al, 2014, 2015, 2017), and have highlighted the need to address the connection, or the lack of connection, across the different scales at which we engage with comparative data (Donoghue and Edwards, 2019).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It seems reasonable to assume that microbial load is largely independent of plant genome size. This would mean that in maize, with a 2.5 Gb genome, almost 20× time more sequencing would be required than in A. thaliana with its 0.13 Gb genome, even though this is likely an overestimate, because plants with larger genomes tend to have larger cells [76], each of which could potentially support more microbial cells. Nevertheless, while the microbial load on other species remains to be investigated, this is yet another reason to use A. thaliana (or other species with relatively small genomes) for microbiome studies in ecological settings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following polyploidy events, functionally important genes, such as those allowing for rapid adaptation to environmental change, are often preferentially retained [54], promoting species diversification through ecological niche shifts [55,56]. There is a strong positive correlation between genome size and cell size [57][58][59][60][61], yet the relationship is not consistent in all cell types [62]. Increases in the cell size of polyploids compared to diploids has been observed [63][64][65], and endoreduplication within a single individual often yields larger cells [66][67][68][69][70].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Increases in the cell size of polyploids compared to diploids has been observed [63][64][65], and endoreduplication within a single individual often yields larger cells [66][67][68][69][70]. Genome size has been shown to be a crucial component in determining the minimum size of the cell and represents the upper limit for cell packing densities, which is crucial for carbon assimilation and important in resource allocation for growth, reproduction, and defense [61,71].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%