ArticlePlant molecular biology2011
Genome-wide comparison of two poplar genotypes with different growth rates.
Article in Plant molecular biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Growth Trajectories and Verification of Related SNPs inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Transcriptome Analysis of the Salt-TreatedCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2023Article
- The GATA transcription factor GNC plays an important role in photosynthesis and growth in poplar.Journal of experimental botany · 2020Article
- Comparative transcriptome analyses define genes and gene modules differing between twoBiotechnology for biofuels · 2020Article
- Transcriptome analysis of diploid and triploidPeerJ · 2020Article
- Xylem Cell Wall Formation in Pioneer Roots and Stems ofFrontiers in plant science · 2019Article
- Genes responsive to elevated CO2 concentrations in triploid white poplar and integrated gene network analysis.PloS one · 2014Article
- Overexpression of the poplar NF-YB7 transcription factor confers drought tolerance and improves water-use efficiency in Arabidopsis.Journal of experimental botany · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ecologically dominant and economically important genus Populus, with its available full genome sequence, has become an ideal woody species for genomic study. Rapid growth is one of the primary advantageous features of Populus, and extensive physiological research has been carried out on the growth of Populus throughout the growing period among different clones. However, the molecular information related to the mechanisms of rapid growth is rather limited. In this study, an Affymetrix poplar genome array was employed to analyze the transcriptomic changes from the pre-growth to the fast-growth phase in two poplar clones (P.deltoides × P.nigra, DN2, and P.nigra × (P.deltoides × P. nigra), NE19) with different growth rates. A total of 1,695 differently expressed genes were identified between two time points in NE19 and DN2 (two-way ANOVA, P < 0.01 and fold change ≥2). Except for genes changing in common for both clones, many transcripts were regulated specifically in one genotype. After functional analysis of the differentially expressed genes, distinct biological strategies seemed to be utilized by the two genotypes to accommodate their fast-growth phase. The faster-growing clone NE19, which has a higher photosynthetic rate and larger total leaf area, emphasized growth-related primary metabolism. However, the slower-growing DN2 tended to have more up-regulated genes involved in defense-related secondary metabolism and stress response. Emphasis of such divergent biological processes in two clones may explain their significant growth differences during the fast-growth phase.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21614644What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.