Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16048792›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2005

Selection in backcross programmes.

Frédéric Hospital

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

56 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Achieving High-Density and Stress-Resilient Maize Breeding Via Germplasm Innovation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. QTL combinations associated with field partial resistance to Aphanomyces root rot in pea near-isogenic lines.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Enhancing backcross programs through increased recombination.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2021
    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

1 author.

Frédéric HospitalINRA, UMR de Génétique Végétale, Ferme du Moulon, 91190 Gif-sur-Yvette, France. fred@moulon.inra.fr

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Backcrossing is a well-known and long established breeding scheme where a characteristic is introgressed from a donor parent into the genomic background of a recurrent parent. The various uses of backcrossing in modern genetics, particularly with the help of molecular markers, are reviewed here. Selection in backcross programmes is used to either improve the genetic value of plant and animal populations or fine map quantitative trait loci. Both cases are helpful in our understanding of the genetic bases of quantitative traits variation.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationQuantitative Trait, HeritableSelection, GeneticAnimalsBreedingCrosses, GeneticGenetic MarkersGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID16048792
PMCPMC1569518

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.