Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15454556›Full record

ArticleGenetics2004

Comparative mapping in the Pinaceae.

Konstantin V Krutovsky, Michela Troggio, Garth R Brown, Kathleen D Jermstad, David B Neale

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 164 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Studying the genetic basis of masting.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Genomic Variation Among and Within SixG3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Comparative analysis of the radish genome based on a conserved ortholog set (COS) of Brassica.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2014
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Konstantin V KrutovskyInstitute of Forest Genetics, Pacific Southwest Research Station, US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Davis, California 95616, USA.
Michela Troggio
Garth R Brown
Kathleen D Jermstad
David B Neale
Pacific Southwest Research Station · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of Parma · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A comparative genetic map was constructed between two important genera of the family Pinaceae. Ten homologous linkage groups in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirb.] Franco) were identified using orthologous expressed sequence tag polymorphism (ESTP) and restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) markers. The comparative mapping revealed extensive synteny and colinearity between genomes of the Pinaceae, consistent with the hypothesis of conservative chromosomal evolution in this important plant family. This study reports the first comparative map in forest trees at the family taxonomic level and establishes a framework for comparative genomics in Pinaceae.

Indexed as

Chromosome MappingPolymorphism, GeneticBase SequenceEvolution, MolecularExpressed Sequence TagsGenetic MarkersGenomicsMolecular Sequence DataPinaceaePolymorphism, Restriction Fragment LengthSequence Analysis, DNASyntenyGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID15454556
PMCPMC1448108
OpenAlexW2138409795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.