In the past decade, plant biologists and breeders have developed a growing interest in the field of epigenetics, which is defined as the study of heritable changes in gene expression that cannot be explained by changes in the DNA sequence. Epigenetic marks can be responsive to the environment, and evolve faster than genetic changes. Therefore, epigenetic diversity may represent an unexplored resource of natural variation that could be used in plant breeding programmes. On the other hand, crop genomes are largely populated with transposable elements (TEs) that are efficiently targeted by epigenetic marks, and part of the epigenetic diversity observed might be explained by TE polymorphisms. Characterizing the degree to which TEs influence epigenetic variation in crops is therefore a major goal to better use epigenetic variation. To date, epigenetic analyses have been mainly focused on the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana, and have provided clues on epigenome features, components that silence pathways, and effects of silencing impairment. But to what extent can Arabidopsis be used as a model for the epigenomics of crops? In this review, we discuss the similarities and differences between the epigenomes of Arabidopsis and crops. We explore the relationship between TEs and epigenomes, focusing on TE silencing control and escape, and the impact of TE mobility on epigenomic variation. Finally, we provide insights into challenges to tackle, and future directions to take in the route towards using epigenetic diversity in plant breeding programmes.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2017.
All research outputs
#12,343,598
of 34,358,242 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental Botany
#4,564
of 9,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,043
of 271,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental Botany
#59
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,358,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,128 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 271,215 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
