Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21605436›Full record

ArticleBMC plant biology2011

Mutation scanning of peach floral genes.

Yihua Chen, H Dayton Wilde

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC plant biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Spontaneous, Artificial, and Genome Editing-Mediated Mutations inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Yihua ChenHorticulture Department, University of Georgia, Athens, 30602, USA.
H Dayton Wilde

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMutation scanning technology has been used to develop crop species with improved traits. Modifications that improve screening throughput and sensitivity would facilitate the targeted mutation breeding of crops. Technical innovations for high-resolution melting (HRM) analysis are enabling the clinic-based screening for human disease gene polymorphism. We examined the application of two HRM modifications, COLD-PCR and QMC-PCR, to the mutation scanning of genes in peach, Prunus persica. The targeted genes were the putative floral regulators PpAGAMOUS and PpTERMINAL FLOWER I.

resultsHRM analysis of PpAG and PpTFL1 coding regions in 36 peach cultivars found one polymorphic site in each gene. PpTFL1 and PpAG SNPs were used to examine approaches to increase HRM throughput. Cultivars with SNPs could be reliably detected in pools of twelve genotypes. COLD-PCR was found to increase the sensitivity of HRM analysis of pooled samples, but worked best with small amplicons. Examination of QMC-PCR demonstrated that primary PCR products for further analysis could be produced from variable levels of genomic DNA.

conclusionsNatural SNPs in exons of target peach genes were discovered by HRM analysis of cultivars from a southeastern US breeding program. For detecting natural or induced SNPs in larger populations, HRM efficiency can be improved by increasing sample pooling and template production through approaches such as COLD-PCR and QMC-PCR. Technical advances developed to improve clinical diagnostics can play a role in the targeted mutation breeding of crops.

Indexed as

Genes, PlantAllelesDNA Mutational AnalysisDNA, PlantExonsFlowersGenotypeNucleic Acid DenaturationPlant LeavesPlant ProteinsPolymerase Chain ReactionPolymorphism, Single NucleotidePrunusSequence AlignmentSequence Analysis, DNADNA, PlantPlant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID21605436
PMCPMC3120741

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.