Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.


Aquatic angiosperm ambiguities answered

New genome sequences for early-branching, aquatic flowering plants provide fresh insights into angiosperm phylogeny as well as key resources for deciphering their genome adaptive landscapes.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Aquatic angiosperm phylogenetic placements and gene deletion biases following polyploidization events.

Image in a, Nature Photographers Ltd/Alamy Stock Photo.


  1. 1.

    Yang, Y. et al. Nat. Plants (2020).

  2. 2.

    Zhang, L. et al. Nature 577, 79–84 (2020).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Gray, A. Ann. Lyceum Nat. Hist. N. Y. 4, 41–50 (1848).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Chase, M. W. et al. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80, 528–548 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Ming, R. et al. Genome Biol. 14, R41 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Amborella Genome Project Science 342, 1241089 (2013).

  7. 7.

    Iwamoto, A., Shimizu, A. & Ohba, H. Am. J. Bot. 90, 1124–1130 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Endress, P. K. in Early Evolution of Flowers (eds Endress, P. K. & Friis, E. M.) 175–183 (Springer, 1994).

  9. 9.

    Herendeen, P. S., Les, H. H. & Dilcher, D. L. Am. J. Bot. 77, 7–16 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    One Thousand Plant Transcriptomes Initiative. Nature 574, 679–685 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Rendón-Anaya, M. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 17081–17089 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Pellicer, J., Kelly, L. J., Magdalena, C. & Leitch, I. J. Genome 56, 437–449 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Tang, H. et al. Genome Res. 18, 1944–1954 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lan, T. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E4435–E4441 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Fukushima, K. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0059 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Carretero-Paulet, L. et al. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 1284–1295 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Qiu, Y.-L., Chase, M. W., Les, D. H. & Parks, C. R. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80, 587–606 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Hamby, R. K. & Zimmer, E. A. in Molecular Systematics of Plants (eds Soltis, P. S., Soltis, D. E. & Doyle, J. J.) 50–91 (Chapman and Hall, 1992).

  19. 19.

    Les, D. H. Taxon 37, 326–345 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Les, D. H., Garvin, D. K. & Wimpee, C. F. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 88, 10119–10123 (1991).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Joyce, B. L. et al. Bioinformatics 33, 552–554 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victor A. Albert.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Albert, V.A., Renner, T. Aquatic angiosperm ambiguities answered. Nat. Plants 6, 181–183 (2020).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing