| Literature DB >> 24288377 |
Sònia Garcia1, Ilia J Leitch, Alba Anadon-Rosell, Miguel Á Canela, Francisco Gálvez, Teresa Garnatje, Airy Gras, Oriane Hidalgo, Emmeline Johnston, Gemma Mas de Xaxars, Jaume Pellicer, Sonja Siljak-Yakovlev, Joan Vallès, Daniel Vitales, Michael D Bennett.
Abstract
Two plant genome size databases have been recently updated and/or extended: the Plant DNA C-values database (http://data.kew.org/cvalues), and GSAD, the Genome Size in Asteraceae database (http://www.asteraceaegenomesize.com). While the first provides information on nuclear DNA contents across land plants and some algal groups, the second is focused on one of the largest and most economically important angiosperm families, Asteraceae. Genome size data have numerous applications: they can be used in comparative studies on genome evolution, or as a tool to appraise the cost of whole-genome sequencing programs. The growing interest in genome size and increasing rate of data accumulation has necessitated the continued update of these databases. Currently, the Plant DNA C-values database (Release 6.0, Dec. 2012) contains data for 8510 species, while GSAD has 1219 species (Release 2.0, June 2013), representing increases of 17 and 51%, respectively, in the number of species with genome size data, compared with previous releases. Here we provide overviews of the most recent releases of each database, and outline new features of GSAD. The latter include (i) a tool to visually compare genome size data between species, (ii) the option to export data and (iii) a webpage containing information about flow cytometry protocols.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24288377 PMCID: PMC3965065 DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt1195
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nucleic Acids Res ISSN: 0305-1048 Impact factor: 16.971
Figure 1.Mean number of plant genome size estimates reported per year over 12 successive 5-year periods and the 3-year period 2010–2012 (dotted line), between 1950 and 2012. Data taken from the Plant DNA C-values database (Release 6.0, December 2012).
Figure 2.Growth of the Plant DNA C-values database in terms of the total number of species represented in the whole database (diagonal hatch) and for each individual group (squares = angiosperms; light gray = gymnosperms; white = pteridophytes; black = bryophytes; dark gray = algae).
Minimum (Min.), maximum (Max.) and mean 2C-values for each plant group represented in the Plant DNA C-values database (Release 6.0, Dec. 2012), together with percentage representation of species in each group
| Plant group | Min. (pg) | Max. (pg) | Mean (pg) | Range (Max./Min.) | Approximate number of species recognized | Number of species in the Plant DNA C-values database | Approximate % species representation in the Plant DNA C-values database |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Algae | |||||||
| Chlorophyta | 0.02 | 39.2 | 3.4 | 1960-fold | 6500 | 91 | 1.4 |
| Rhodophyta | 0.02 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 140-fold | 6000 | 118 | 1.9 |
| Phaeophyta | 0.2 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 9-fold | 1500 | 44 | 2.9 |
| Bryophytes | |||||||
| Liverworts | 0.42 | 15.94 | 2.4 | 38-fold | 5000 | 48 | 0.9 |
| Mosses | 0.34 | 4.1 | 1 | 12-fold | 12 000 | 184 | 1.5 |
| Pteridophytes | |||||||
| Lycophytes | 0.18 | 23.94 | 4.8 | 133-fold | 900 | 27 | 3 |
| Monilophytes | 1.54 | 145.36 | 25.6 | 94-fold | 11 000 | 101 | 0.9 |
| Gymnosperms | 4.5 | 72 | 36.2 | 16-fold | 1026 | 355 | 34.6 |
| Angiosperms | 0.13 | 304.46 | 11.6 | 2342-fold | 352 000 | 7542 | 2.1 |
Figure 3.Histograms showing the distribution of genome sizes in the different plant groups using data taken from the Plant DNA C-values database (Release 6.0, December 2012).
Figure 4.Mean number of Asteraceae genome size estimates reported per year over 9 successive 5-year periods and the 4-year period 2010–2013 (dotted line), between 1965 and 2013. Data taken from GSAD (Release 2.0, June 2013).
Minimum (Min.), maximum (Max.) and mean 2C-values for each of the subfamilies (in bold) and tribes of Asteraceae represented in GSAD (Release 2.0, June 2013) together with percentage representation of species in each group
| Subfamily and tribe | Min. (pg) | Max. (pg) | Mean (pg) | Range (Max./Min.) | Approximate number of species recognized | Number of species in GSAD | Approximate % representation of species in GSAD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anthemideae | 2.56 | 142 | 11.16 | 55-fold | 1800 | 308 | 17.1 |
| Astereae | 0.91 | 21.43 | 3.84 | 24-fold | 3080 | 63 | 2 |
| Calenduleae | 1.75 | 5.41 | 3.16 | 3-fold | 270 | 7 | 2.6 |
| Coreopsidae | 1.5 | 56.56 | 8.04 | 38-fold | 550 | 31 | 5.6 |
| Eupatorieae | 2.2 | 7.2 | 3.64 | 3-fold | 2200 | 8 | 0.4 |
| Gnaphalieae | 1.11 | 15.5 | 2.84 | 14-fold | 1240 | 27 | 2.2 |
| Heliantheae | 2.14 | 30.54 | 8.78 | 14-fold | 1500 | 46 | 3.1 |
| Inuleae | 1.12 | 7.34 | 2.3 | 7-fold | 687 | 40 | 5.8 |
| Madieae | 2.8 | 3.13 | 2.96 | 1-fold | >200 | 2 | 1 |
| Millerieae | 0.98 | 11.5 | 5.24 | 12-fold | 400 | 29 | 7.25 |
| Polymnieae | 5.4 | 5.4 | 5.4 | 3 | 1 | 33.3 | |
| Senecioneae | 0.79 | 52.3 | 7.5 | 66-fold | 3500 | 113 | 3.2 |
| Tageteae | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 270 | 1 | 0.4 | |
| Barnadesieae | 8.44 | 8.44 | 8.44 | 91 | 1 | 1.1 | |
| Cardueae | 1.28 | 28.94 | 3.64 | 22-fold | 2360 | 229 | 8.8 |
| Cichorieae | 0.8 | 31.3 | 6.5 | 39-fold | >1500 | 282 | 18.8 |
| Vernonieae | 2.04 | 39.9 | 8.44 | 20-fold | >1000 | 23 | 2.3 |
| Gochnatieae | 2.27 | 4.53 | 3.4 | 88 | 1 | 1.1 | |
| Mutisieae | 5.12 | 7.68 | 6.46 | 2-fold | 200 | 6 | 3 |
| Nassauvieae | 3.66 | 7.8 | 5.9 | 2-fold | 300 | 3 | 1 |
aNumber of species recognized in each subfamily and tribe taken from Kubitzki (52) and Funk et al. (53).
A comparison of the number of records for the most widely represented genera in the GSAD database
| Release 1.0 | Release 2.0 | Increase (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 246 (1) | 366 (1) | 48.8 | |
| 175 (3) | 260 (2) | 48.6 | |
| 185 (2) | 198 (3) | 7.0 | |
| 97 (4) | 157 (4) | 61.9 | |
| 113 (5) | 135 (5) | 19.5 |
The ranking of the best represented genera is in brackets.