Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16118196›Full record

ArticleGenetics2005

Mapping with a few plants: using selective mapping for microsatellite saturation of the Prunus reference map.

Werner Howad, Toshiya Yamamoto, Elisabeth Dirlewanger, Raffaele Testolin, Patrick Cosson, Guido Cipriani, Antonio J Monforte, Laura Georgi, Albert G Abbott, Pere Arús

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 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. Genetic architecture of key traits forHorticulture research · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Characterization of Japanese Plum (Frontiers in plant science · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Horticulture research · 2019
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors.

Werner HowadDepartament de Genètica Vegetal, Laboratori de Genètica Molecular Vegetal, CSIC-IRTA, 08348 Cabrils (Barcelona), Spain.
Toshiya Yamamoto
Elisabeth Dirlewanger
Raffaele Testolin
Patrick Cosson
Guido Cipriani
Antonio J Monforte
Laura Georgi
Albert G Abbott
Pere Arús

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concept of selective (or bin) mapping is used here for the first time, using as an example the Prunus reference map constructed with an almond x peach F2 population. On the basis of this map, a set of six plants that jointly defined 65 possible different genotypes for the codominant markers mapped on it was selected. Sixty-three of these joint genotypes corresponded to a single chromosomal region (a bin) of the Prunus genome, and the two remaining corresponded to two bins each. The 67 bins defined by these six plants had a 7.8-cM average length and a maximum individual length of 24.7 cM. Using a unit of analysis composed of these six plants, their F1 hybrid parent, and one of the parents of the hybrid, we mapped 264 microsatellite (or simple-sequence repeat, SSR) markers from 401 different microsatellite primer pairs. Bin mapping proved to be a fast and economic strategy that could be used for further map saturation, the addition of valuable markers (such as those based on microsatellites or ESTs), and giving a wider scope to, and a more efficient use of, reference mapping populations.

Indexed as

Chromosome MappingMicrosatellite RepeatsGenes, DominantGenetic MarkersMinisatellite RepeatsPrunusGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID16118196
PMCPMC1456826

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.