Homoeolog expression bias and expression level dominance in allopolyploids
Article first published online: 4 OCT 2012
© 2012 The Authors. New Phytologist © 2012 New Phytologist Trust
Volume 196, Issue 4, pages 966–971, December 2012
How to Cite
Grover, C. E., Gallagher, J. P., Szadkowski, E. P., Yoo, M. J., Flagel, L. E. and Wendel, J. F. (2012), Homoeolog expression bias and expression level dominance in allopolyploids. New Phytologist, 196: 966–971. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04365.x
- Issue published online: 5 NOV 2012
- Article first published online: 4 OCT 2012
- gene expression;
- genome duplication;
Polyploidy is now recognized as a characteristic feature of all angiosperm genomes (Jiao et al., 2011), and remains an important speciation process today (Wendel, 2000; Comai, 2005; Doyle et al., 2008; Leitch & Leitch, 2008; Soltis & Soltis, 2009; Soltis et al., 2010). In allopolyploids, genomic merger and doubling are associated with myriad non-Mendelian interactions and processes, including sequence elimination (Shaked et al., 2001; Ozkan et al., 2003; Han et al., 2005; Skalicka et al., 2005; Anssour et al., 2009; Tate et al., 2009; Jackson & Chen, 2010), alterations of epigenetic marks (Shaked et al., 2001; Madlung et al., 2002; Rapp & Wendel, 2005; Chen, 2007; Doyle et al., 2008; Kovarik et al., 2008b; Soltis & Soltis, 2009; Soltis et al., 2010), activation of genes and retroelements (O'Neill et al., 1998; Kashkush et al., 2003; Kraitshtein et al., 2010) and several kinds of homoeologous interactions and exchanges (Gaeta et al., 2007; Kovarik et al., 2008a; Salmon et al., 2010; Szadkowski et al., 2010). Changes in duplicate gene expression are no less diverse, spanning the spectrum from expression conservation, relative to that of the diploid progenitors, to silencing of one homoeolog, to novel patterns of up- and down-regulation (transgressive expression). Each of these transcriptomic responses varies in magnitude among allopolyploid species and individuals, among tissues and organ types within any one system, and with respect to the time since polyploid formation (Flagel et al., 2008; Flagel & Wendel, 2010). The phenotypic consequences of alterations in gene expression associated with hybridization and polyploidy are many and varied (Ni et al., 2009; Swanson-Wagner et al., 2009), underscoring the importance of understanding the expression level consequences of genome merger and doubling.
The advent and subsequent widespread utilization of microarray and next-generation sequencing technologies has led to a rapid increase in explorations of gene expression in a variety of polyploid plants. These many efforts have generated a sufficient body of empirical data that generalizations are beginning to emerge concerning transcriptome changes in allopolyploids. For example, in every allopolyploid examined to date, some fraction of the duplicate gene pairs will be expressed unequally, and this suite of unequally expressed genes may itself favor one of the co-resident genomes, leading to a transcriptome that is unequally expressed with respect to the component genomes. While these generalizations are broadly applicable, much remains to be learned regarding the mechanistic underpinnings of duplicate gene expression change, the proximate and ultimate causes of inter-taxon and inter-organ variation in the response dynamics to polyploidy, and the functional, ecological, and evolutionary significance of duplicate gene expression modification.
In addition to unequal expression of two homoeologs, other phenomena have been described which are even more poorly understood and for which fewer examples have yet been published. One of these is the concept of genome dominance (or genome expression dominance), which describes the expression condition in an allopolyploid where, for a given gene, the total expression of homoeologs is statistically the same as only one of the polyploid parents. This phenomenon was originally described for cotton allopolyploids by Rapp et al. (2009), confirmed and extended by Flagel & Wendel (2010), and subsequently described for both Spartina (Chelaifa et al., 2010) and Coffea (Bardil et al., 2011). This phenomenon is distinct from homoeolog expression bias (sometimes referred to as transcriptome dominance on a genome-wide basis), which describes the relative expression of homoeologs. Moreover, similar words are being used for rather different phenomena. Schnable et al. (2011), for example, invoked the term genomic dominance in maize, in a paper in which they demonstrated that the two subgenomes derived from the most recent polyploidy event in maize have experienced differential gene loss, with an accompanying gene expression bias favoring the more conserved subgenome (Schnable et al., 2011). By other accounts (Chen, 2007; Flagel & Wendel, 2010), this would be considered homoeolog expression bias (or transcriptome dominance) of ancient homoeologs. This inconsistency of conceptual application of the term genomic dominance also applies to the preferential expression of one subgenome of wheat (Akhunova et al., 2010), and to the patterns of biased expression in the fractionated subgenomes of paleohexaploid Brassica rapa (Cheng et al., 2012; Tang et al., 2012). This semantic and conceptual confusion appears to be gaining foothold in the literature; the phenomenon of preferential expression of one parental genome relative to the other in a polyploid species is termed genomic dominance in two recent reviews (Freeling et al., 2012; Schnable et al., 2012), citing both Schnable et al. (2011) and Flagel & Wendel (2010), and the term has also been applied to genomic modifications (Nicolas et al., 2012). Further complicating matters is the classical genetic concept associated with the term ‘dominance’, which conveys the relative expression hierarchy among a set of alleles.
Against this backdrop of terminological and conceptual inconsistency, we thought it might be useful to briefly review the primary phenotypes of gene expression modification associated with allopolyploidy. Toward that end we describe and distinguish expression pattern changes observed in hybrid and polyploid species, and suggest a terminology (homoeolog expression bias and expression level dominance; Table 1; Fig. 1) that we hope will increase clarity of communication.
|Definition||Requirements for comparison||Scale||Synonyms and exemplar references|
|1||Homoeolog expression bias||Homoeolog expression ratio that is unexpected, given either: (1) the assumption of 50/50 expression levels, or (2) the ratio of expression levels derived from actual, or model, parental diploids.||Single gene|| |
Transcriptome dominance (Chen, 2007)
Biased bias (Flagel & Wendel, 2010)
Nucleolar dominance (refers to rRNA expression only; Chen & Pikaard, 1997)
|2A||Balanced homoeolog expression bias||Direction of bias among genes is equivalent overall, with respect to parental genomes; that is, an approximately equal number of genes display homoeolog expression bias in the direction of each parent|| |
1. Measured, estimated, or assumed parental expression levels
2. Estimate of homoeolog usage for each gene
|2B||Unbalanced homoeolog expression bias||Direction of bias among genes is not equivalent overall, with respect to parental genomes; that is, more genes display homoeolog expression bias toward one parent than toward the other parent(s)|
|3||Expression level dominance||The total expression level for all homoeologs of a gene in a polyploid is statistically equivalent to the expression level of one of the polyploid parents (model or actual)|| |
1. Measured parental (actual or model) expression levels
2. Total expression level of all homoeologs
|Single gene|| |
Genomic expression dominance (Rapp et al., 2009)
Genomic dominance (Flagel & Wendel, 2010)
Parental dominance (Chelaifa et al., 2010)
|4A||Balanced expression level dominance||Direction among genes is equivalent overall, with respect to parental genomes; that is, an approximately equal number of genes display expression level dominance in the direction of each parent||Multiple genes|
|4B||Unbalanced expression level dominance||Direction among genes is not equivalent overall, with respect to parental genomes; that is, more genes display expression level dominance toward one parent than toward the other parent(s)|
Homoeolog expression bias
The term bias is straightforward: with respect to duplicate gene expression in an allotetraploid, bias refers to the preferential expression of one homoeolog relative to the other, although the term has also been used to describe differences in allelic expression at a locus. In an allotetraploid, when two progenitor diploids (A and B) exhibit equivalent levels of expression for a gene, but the two homoeologs (AT and BT, where the subscript denotes the homoeolog in a tetraploid) are expressed unequally (e.g. 80% and 20% of the total expression pool for the AT and BT homoeologs, respectively), then that gene is said to display biased expression, or homoeolog expression bias (Table 1; Fig. 1, upper panel). This definition of biased expression has an explicit evolutionary dimension, in that it entails a comparison of expression levels among progenitor, or model progenitor, and derivative genomes. In some cases, however, parental expression levels cannot be ascertained, and so the definition of biased expression is relaxed relative to the ancestral states; for these comparisons, the assumption of a 1:1 parental expression ratio usually is applied, for example, in maize (Schnable et al., 2011). When parental expression levels are measured and are unequal, bias is more frequently assessed by comparing the expression of each homoeolog to the relative expression level of the parents or to a mid-parent expression value (Rapp et al., 2009; Chague et al., 2010; Flagel & Wendel, 2010). Homoeolog expression bias has been documented for many different allopolyploids, including Gossypium (Adams et al., 2003; Yang et al., 2006; Flagel et al., 2008; Hovav et al., 2008), Triticum (Mochida et al., 2003; Bottley et al., 2006), Tragopogon (Buggs et al., 2010a,b; Koh et al., 2010), Arabidopsis (Wang et al., 2004; Chang et al., 2010), Brassica (Gaeta et al., 2007; Auger et al., 2009), Spartina (Chelaifa et al., 2010), and others.
Expression bias is a quantitative as well as qualitative concept. For any gene pair, biased expression of one homoeolog ranges from subtle but statistically demonstrable, to complete, whereby one homoeolog is fully silenced. It also is quantitative on a genome-wide scale; that is, for the transcriptome as a whole, in some cases a relatively small proportion of the total number of gene pairs examined displays homoeolog expression bias, whereas in other systems or samples, this fraction may be much higher. When referring to biased expression for the transcriptome as a whole, there may be a great deal or relatively little homoeolog expression bias. Importantly, homoeolog expression bias itself can be either balanced among the genomes comprising the polyploid (i.e. homoeolog expression bias does not favor one component genome), or unbalanced (i.e. homoeolog expression bias favors one genome). This is modeled in Fig. 2(a), which shows that when homoeolog expression bias is balanced, the number of duplicate gene pairs exhibiting biased expression toward one parental genome is equivalent to the number demonstrating biased expression toward the other parental genome. In contrast, unbalanced homoeolog expression bias refers to cases where preferential homoeolog expression is skewed with respect to the progenitor genomes (Fig. 2a); that is, two co-resident transcriptomes are not expressed equally overall. Unbalanced homoeolog expression bias in allopolyploids is commonly observed, varies in magnitude, and remains mechanistically mysterious (Chen & Pikaard, 1997; Wang et al., 2006; Flagel et al., 2008; Chaudhary et al., 2009; Akhunova et al., 2010; Buggs et al., 2010a; Schnable & Freeling, 2011; Schnable et al., 2011). The phenomenon of unbalanced homoeolog expression bias was described by Chen (2007) as transcriptomic dominance, and sometimes is confused with expression level dominance, as mentioned above and discussed further below. The concepts of homoeolog bias and balance with respect to progenitor genomes also apply to higher ploidy levels than tetraploid, but with an obvious added complexity of inference.
Expression level dominance
As mentioned above, the term genome expression dominance, or simply genomic dominance, was used by Rapp et al. (2009) to describe the phenomenon where the total expression of homoeologs for a given gene in an allopolyploid is statistically equivalent to the expression level of that gene in only one of the parents, irrespective of homoeolog usage and even in the absence of homoeolog usage bias (Yoo et al., in press). This concept is distinct from homoeolog expression bias in that it does not consider relative expression levels of individual homoeologs, but rather refers to the total expression level of a duplicate gene pair, when measured in the allopolyploid and when compared to its parents.
Genomic dominance was first described in synthetic allopolyploid cotton for the leaf transcriptome by Rapp et al. (Rapp et al., 2009), who also provide a useful elaboration of methods for its detection for different categories of gene expression (see Rapp et al., 2009, figs 3, 4). Since that initial report, genomic dominance has been discovered in additional cotton tissues and in natural allopolyploids (Flagel & Wendel, 2010), as well as in Spartina (Chelaifa et al., 2010), Triticum (Chague et al., 2010; Qi et al., 2012), and Coffea (Bardil et al., 2011). Flagel & Wendel (2010) expanded the work of Rapp et al. (2009) to include five natural allopolyploid species, in the process demonstrating that whereas nascent allopolyploids may exhibit a high level of bias in genomic dominance, over evolutionary time the bias in genomic dominance dissipates even while its overall magnitude remains relatively high, thereby demonstrating a temporal dimension to the phenomenon. Chelaifa et al. (2010) described ‘parental dominance’ in the hybrid Spartina × townsendii, which exhibited overall expression levels that mirrored the maternal progenitor S. alterniflora, and noted that the allopolyploid, Spartina anglica, exhibited only slight overall expression levels favoring the same parent (Chelaifa et al., 2010). Genomic dominance also was recently reported for Coffea (Bardil et al., 2011), using analytical procedures similar to those employed by Rapp et al. (2009) and Flagel & Wendel (2010). Importantly, the magnitude of genomic dominance and biased dominance was temperature-dependent: in the allopolyploid C. arabica cv Java, a higher number of genes mimicked the C. canephora parental expression levels when the polyploid was grown under hot conditions, but no preference was exhibited in the cool conditions; this temperature-dependent genomic dominance was also demonstrated for C. arabica cv T18141 (Bardil et al., 2011). Finally, in allohexaploid wheat, the concept of genomic dominance was also used as originally defined; however, because the analyses conducted restricted the datasets used to only those genes that were statistically different from the mid-parent value, the inference of genomic dominance was applied to a limited set of genes, leading to inferences of both genomic dominance (Qi et al., 2012) and no global genomic dominance (Chague et al., 2010).
Because of the confusion surrounding the phenomenon of genomic dominance and the divergent applications of the term (as introduced above), we suggest here a clarification in terminology, modifying the previously used (and confounded) term genomic dominance to expression level dominance (Table 1; Fig. 1, lower panel). In replacing ‘genomic’ with ‘expression level’, the actual phenomenon being described is invoked, as opposed to the more ambiguous word ‘genomic’. For clarity, if a given gene is more highly (or lowly) expressed in parent A than in parent B but the total expression in the allopolyploid is equivalent to parent A, expression level dominance is inferred in the direction of the A parent (Fig. 2b). Importantly, this inference holds irrespective of the direction of mirroring in the allopolyploid; that is, when total expression (AT + BT) is statistically equivalent to that of one parent (A or B) but not the other, expression level dominance is inferred, irrespective of whether parent A is up- or down-regulated relative to B. This is illustrated in Fig. 2(b), where both ‘up’ and ‘down’ states in an allopolyploid are depicted. Importantly, expression level dominance may be inferred irrespective of whether or not a homoeolog pair exhibits bias; the two concepts are independent in this sense, although there may be mechanistic connections (Shi et al., 2012; Yoo et al., in press). Also, as with homoeolog expression bias, expression level dominance is quantitative (i.e. involving few to many genes), and it may be balanced (equivalent number of gene pairs exhibiting the expression level of both parents) overall or unbalanced (more gene pairs in an allopolyploid exhibiting the expression level of one parent than the other).
The evaluation and inference of expression level dominance in allotetraploids requires expression information from three entities, the two progenitor diploids and their derived polyploid. Because of this, expression level dominance is challenging to measure in paleopolyploids or those that have undergone substantial fractionation (homoeolog loss), because either the diploid parents are extinct or because of extensive homoeolog loss.
As discussed above, the evolution of polyploids entails complex alterations in gene expression, some of which bear on relationships among homoeolog usage only within an allopolyploid (homoeolog expression bias) and others involving comparisons of gene expression between allopolyploids and progenitor diploids (expression level dominance). It bears mention that both phenomena frequently occur in the same polyploid (Yoo et al., in press), potentially even occurring in the opposite direction (e.g. homoeolog expression bias toward one parent and expression level dominance toward the other parent; Fig. 2c). An additional layer of inferential complexity arises when considering ploidy levels higher than tetraploid. In these cases measuring homoeolog expression bias and expression level dominance may be challenging, but should be feasible for plants such as hexaploid wheat, where diploid models of all three progenitor genomes remain extant.
As reviewed briefly in the introduction to this note, polyploid genomes are extraordinarily dynamic, possessing a combinatorial complexity far in excess of their diploid progenitors and a transcriptome that has undergone a massive rewiring. Homoeolog expression bias and expression level dominance appear to be two widespread consequences of genome merger and doubling. Our intention here is to draw attention to these phenomena and their distinctions, thereby facilitating the adoption of a more consistent lexicon for clear and efficient communication.
We thank Richard Buggs for helpful discussion and the reviewers for their comments. J. P. Gallagher is supported by a Graduate Research Fellowship from the National Science Foundation.
- 2003. Genes duplicated by polyploidy show unequal contributions to the transcriptome and organ-specific reciprocal silencing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100: 4649–4654. , , , .
- 2010. Homoeolog-specific transcriptional bias in allopolyploid wheat. BMC Genomics 11: 505. , , , .
- 2009. Phenotypic, genetic and genomic consequences of natural and synthetic polyploidization of Nicotiana attenuata and Nicotiana obtusifolia. Annals of Botany 103: 1207–1217. , , , , , .
- 2009. Brassica orthologs from BANYULS belong to a small multigene family, which is involved in procyanidin accumulation in the seed. Planta 230: 1167–1183. , , , , , , , , .
- 2011. Genomic expression dominance in the natural allopolyploid Coffea arabica is massively affected by growth temperature. New Phytologist 192: 760–774. , , , , .
- 2006. Homoeologous gene silencing in hexaploid wheat. Plant Journal 47: 897. , , .
- 2010a. Characterization of duplicate gene evolution in the recent natural allopolyploid Tragopogon miscellus by next-generation sequencing and Sequenom iPLEX MassARRAY genotyping. Molecular Ecology 19: 132–146. , , , , , , , , .
- 2010b. Tissue-specific silencing of homoeologs in natural populations of the recent allopolyploid Tragopogon mirus. New Phytologist 186: 175–183. , , , , , , .
- 2010. Genome-wide gene expression changes in genetically stable synthetic and natural wheat allohexaploids. New Phytologist 187: 1181–1194. , , , , , , , , , et al.
- 2010. Homoeolog-specific retention and use in allotetraploid Arabidopsis suecica depends on parent of origin and network partners. Genome Biology 11: R125. , , , , .
- 2009. Reciprocal silencing, transcriptional bias and functional divergence of homeologs in polyploid cotton (Gossypium). Genetics 182: 503–517. , , , , , , .
- 2010. Transcriptomic changes following recent natural hybridization and allopolyploidy in the salt marsh species Spartina townsendii and Spartina anglica (Poaceae). New Phytologist 186: 161–174. , , .
- 2007. Genetic and epigenetic mechanisms for gene expression and phenotypic variation in plant polyploids. Annual Review of Plant Biology 58: 377–406. .
- 1997. Transcriptional analysis of nucleolar dominance in polyploid plants: biased expression/silencing of progenitor rRNA genes is developmentally regulated in Brassica. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 94: 3442–3447. , .
- 2012. Biased gene fractionation and dominant gene expression among the subgenomes of Brassica rapa. PLoS ONE 7: e36442. , , , , , , , .
- 2005. The advantages and disadvantages of being polyploid. Nature Reviews Genetics 6: 836–846. .
- 2008. Evolutionary genetics of genome merger and doubling in plants. Annual Review of Genetics 42: 443–461. , , , , , , .
- 2008. Duplicate gene expression in allopolyploid Gossypium reveals two temporally distinct phases of expression evolution. BMC Biology 6: 11. , , , .
- 2010. Evolutionary rate variation, genomic dominance and duplicate gene expression evolution during allotetraploid cotton speciation. New Phytologist 186: 184–193. , .
- 2012. Fractionation mutagenesis and similar consequences of mechanisms removing dispensable or less-expressed DNA in plants. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 15: 131–139. , , , , , .
- 2007. Genomic changes in resynthesized Brassica napus and their effect on gene expression and phenotype. The Plant Cell Online 19: 3403–3417. , , , , .
- 2005. Rapid and repeatable elimination of a parental genome-specific DNA repeat (pGc1R-1a) in newly synthesized wheat allopolyploids. Genetics 170: 1239–1245. , , , .
- 2008. Partitioned expression of duplicated genes during development and evolution of a single cell in a polyploid plant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 105: 6191–6195. , , , , , .
- 2010. Genomic and expression plasticity of polyploidy. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 13: 153–159. , .
- 2011. Ancestral polyploidy in seed plants and angiosperms. Nature 473: 97–100. , , , , , , , , , et al.
- 2003. Transcriptional activation of retrotransposons alters the expression of adjacent genes in wheat. Nature Genetics 33: 102–106. , , .
- 2010. Homeolog loss and expression changes in natural populations of the recently and repeatedly formed allotetraploid Tragopogon mirus (Asteraceae). BMC Genomics 11: 97. , , .
- 2008a. Evolution of rDNA in Nicotiana allopolyploids: a potential link between rDNA homogenization and epigenetics. Annals of Botany 101: 815–823. , , , , , , .
- 2008b. Evolution of rDNA in Nicotiana allopolyploids: a potential link between rDNA homogenization and epigenetics. Annals of Botany 101: 815–823. , , , , , , .
- 2010. Genetic and epigenetic dynamics of a retrotransposon after allopolyploidization of wheat. Genetics 186: 801–812. , , , .
- 2008. Genomic plasticity and the diversity of polyploid plants. Science 320: 481–483. , .
- 2002. Remodeling of DNA methylation and phenotypic and transcriptional changes in synthetic Arabidopsis allotetraploids. Plant Physiology 129: 733–746. , , , , , .
- 2003. Discrimination of homoeologous gene expression in hexaploid wheat by SNP analysis of contigs grouped from a large number of expressed sequence tags. Molecular Genetics and Genomics 270: 371. , , .
- 2009. Altered circadian rhythms regulate growth vigour in hybrids and allopolyploids. Nature 457: 327–331. , , , , , , , .
- 2012. Non-random distribution of extensive chromosome rearrangements in Brassica napus depends on genome organization. The Plant Journal 70: 691–703. , , , , .
- 1998. Undermethylation associated with retroelement activation and chromosome remodelling in an interspecific mammalian hybrid. Nature 393: 68–72. , , .
- 2003. Nonadditive changes in genome size during allopolyploidization in the wheat (Aegilops–Triticum) group. Journal of Heredity 94: 260–264. , , .
- 2012. Global transgenerational gene expression dynamics in two newly synthesized allohexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum) lines. BMC Biology 10: 3. , , , , , , , , , et al.
- 2009. Genomic expression dominance in allopolyploids. BMC Biology 7: 18. , , .
- 2005. Epigenetics and plant evolution. New Phytologist 168: 81. , .
- 2010. Homoeologous nonreciprocal recombination in polyploid cotton. New Phytologist 186: 123–134. , , , , .
- 2011. Genes identified by visible mutant phenotypes show increased bias toward one of two subgenomes of maize. PLoS ONE 6: e17855. , .
- 2011. Differentiation of the maize subgenomes by genome dominance and both ancient and ongoing gene loss. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 108: 4069–4074. , , .
- 2012. Escape from preferential retention following repeated whole genome duplication in plants. Frontiers in Plant Science 3: 94. , , , .
- 2001. Sequence elimination and cytosine methylation are rapid and reproducible responses of the genome to wide hybridization and allopolyploidy in wheat. Plant Cell 13: 1749–1759. , , , , .
- 2012. Cis- and trans-regulatory divergence between progenitor species determines gene-expression novelty in Arabidopsis allopolyploids. Nature Communications 3: 950. , , , , , .
- 2005. Preferential elimination of repeated DNA sequences from the paternal, Nicotiana tomentosiformis genome donor of a synthetic, allotetraploid tobacco. New Phytologist 166: 291–303. , , , , , .
- 2010. What we still don't know about polyploidy. Taxon 59: 1387–1403. , , , .
- 2009. The role of hybridization in plant speciation. Annual Review of Plant Biology 60: 561–588. , .
- 2009. Paternal dominance of trans-eQTL influences gene expression patterns in maize hybrids. Science 326: 1118–1120. , , , , , , , .
- 2010. The first meiosis of resynthesized Brassica napus, a genome blender. New Phytologist 186: 102–112. , , , , , , , , , et al.
- 2012. Altered patterns of fractionation and exon deletions in Brassica rapa support a two-step model of paleohexaploidy. Genetics 190: 1563–1574. , , , , , , , , .
- 2009. On the road to diploidization? Homoeolog loss in independently formed populations of the allopolyploid Tragopogon miscellus (Asteraceae) BMC Plant Biology 9: 80. , , , , .
- 2006. Genomewide nonadditive gene regulation in Arabidopsis allotetraploids. Genetics 172: 507–517. , , , , , , , , , et al.
- 2004. Stochastic and epigenetic changes of gene expression in Arabidopsis polyploids. Genetics 167: 1961–1973. , , , , , , , , , .
- 2000. Genome evolution in polyploids. Plant Molecular Biology 42: 225–249. .
- 2006. Accumulation of genome-specific transcripts, transcription factors and phytohormonal regulators during early stages of fiber cell development in allotetraploid cotton. The Plant Journal 47: 761–775. , , , , , , , , , et al.
- Homoeolog expression bias and expression state dominance in allopolyploid cotton. Heredity, in press. , , . in press.