Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Patterns in grass genome evolution.

Jeffrey L Bennetzen1

  • 1Department of Genetics, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-7223, USA. maize@uga.edu

Current Opinion in Plant Biology
|February 13, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Widespread non-target-site resistance in Setaria viridis to four classes of herbicide.

TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik·2026
Same author

The genome of Thesium ramosoides (Santalales) reveals evolutionary dynamics associated with parasitism and alpine adaptation.

Plant communications·2026
Same author

Microbial partner (MiPner) analysis.

Frontiers in microbiomes·2026
Same author

Ferritin-Mediated Iron Homeostasis and Bacterial Shifts Are Associated With Drought Adaptation in Sorghum.

Physiologia plantarum·2025
Same author

Virulence and Genetic Diversity of <i>Puccinia</i> spp., Causal Agents of Rust on Switchgrass (<i>Panicum virgatum</i> L.) in the USA.

Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland)·2025
Same author

Unlocking plant genetics with telomere-to-telomere genome assemblies.

Nature genetics·2024
Same journal

Amino acid sensing and signaling in plants.

Current opinion in plant biology·2026
Same journal

No energy, no defense: Metabolic input shapes defense signaling.

Current opinion in plant biology·2026
Same journal

Bridging paradoxes in recombination at NLR cluster: A structural genomics perspective.

Current opinion in plant biology·2026
Same journal

Trehalose 6-phosphate and hormone signalling crosstalk.

Current opinion in plant biology·2026
Same journal

How to grow a leaf: Generating, maintaining, and modulating flatness.

Current opinion in plant biology·2026
Same journal

Pectin biosynthesis, signaling, and cell polarity in stomatal function and morphogenesis.

Current opinion in plant biology·2026
See all related articles

Grass genome comparisons reveal extensive genomic rearrangement, including deletions and transposable element activity. These processes vary significantly across plant lineages, leading to diverse levels of genomic instability.

Area of Science:

  • Genomics
  • Plant Biology
  • Evolutionary Biology

Background:

  • Large-scale genome comparisons in grasses reveal significant genomic rearrangement.
  • Small rearrangements, primarily deletions from illegitimate recombination, are abundant even in closely related species.
  • Transposable element amplification and gene fragment acquisition are common but vary in contribution across grass species.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To detail the extent and mechanisms of genomic rearrangement in grasses.
  • To investigate the varying rates of genomic instability across different plant lineages.
  • To highlight the need for studies linking genome structure changes to organismal fitness.

Main Methods:

  • Comparative genomics
  • Analysis of genomic rearrangements

Related Experiment Videos

  • Recombinational mapping
  • Orthologous clone sequence comparisons

    • Main Results:

    • Grass genomes exhibit a higher level of rearrangement than previously understood.
    • Illegitimate recombination causing small deletions is widespread but differs in intensity across lineages.
    • Transposable element amplification is a major driver of genome structure variation in some grass species.
    • Polyploidy and segmental duplication followed by gene loss are common but have lineage-specific outcomes.

    Conclusions:

    • Genomic instability varies dramatically among grass species due to differences in rearrangement mechanisms and rates.
    • Understanding the quantitative differences in genomic instability is crucial.
    • Future research should focus on the functional and fitness consequences of observed genome structure changes.