Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21615673›Full record

ArticlePlant biotechnology journal2011

Large-scale transcriptome analysis in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), an orphan legume crop of the semi-arid tropics of Asia and Africa.

Pavana J Hiremath, Andrew Farmer, Steven B Cannon, Jimmy Woodward, Himabindu Kudapa, Reetu Tuteja, Ashish Kumar, Amindala Bhanuprakash, Benjamin Mulaosmanovic, Neha Gujaria and 11 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Plant biotechnology journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
34.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

107 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 260 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Chickpea (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  12. A Comprehensive Review on Chickpea (International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Frontiers in plant science · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

47 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

21 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.

Pavana J HiremathInternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India.
Andrew Farmer
Steven B Cannon
Jimmy Woodward
Himabindu Kudapa
Reetu Tuteja
Ashish Kumar
Amindala Bhanuprakash
Benjamin Mulaosmanovic
Neha Gujaria
Laxmanan Krishnamurthy
Pooran M Gaur
Polavarapu B Kavikishor
Trushar Shah
Ramamurthy Srinivasan
Marc Lohse
Yongli Xiao
Christopher D Town
Douglas R Cook
Gregory D May
Rajeev K Varshney
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics · INNational Center for Genome Resources · USJ. Craig Venter Institute · USAgricultural Research Service · USCentro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz Y Trigo · MXIowa State University · USMax Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology · DENational Research Centre on Plant Biotechnology · INOsmania University · INUniversity of California, Davis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an important legume crop in the semi-arid regions of Asia and Africa. Gains in crop productivity have been low however, particularly because of biotic and abiotic stresses. To help enhance crop productivity using molecular breeding techniques, next generation sequencing technologies such as Roche/454 and Illumina/Solexa were used to determine the sequence of most gene transcripts and to identify drought-responsive genes and gene-based molecular markers. A total of 103,215 tentative unique sequences (TUSs) have been produced from 435,018 Roche/454 reads and 21,491 Sanger expressed sequence tags (ESTs). Putative functions were determined for 49,437 (47.8%) of the TUSs, and gene ontology assignments were determined for 20,634 (41.7%) of the TUSs. Comparison of the chickpea TUSs with the Medicago truncatula genome assembly (Mt 3.5.1 build) resulted in 42,141 aligned TUSs with putative gene structures (including 39,281 predicted intron/splice junctions). Alignment of ∼37 million Illumina/Solexa tags generated from drought-challenged root tissues of two chickpea genotypes against the TUSs identified 44,639 differentially expressed TUSs. The TUSs were also used to identify a diverse set of markers, including 728 simple sequence repeats (SSRs), 495 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 387 conserved orthologous sequence (COS) markers, and 2088 intron-spanning region (ISR) markers. This resource will be useful for basic and applied research for genome analysis and crop improvement in chickpea.

Indexed as

Genome, PlantAfricaAsiaChromosome MappingCicerDroughtsEnergy MetabolismExpressed Sequence TagsGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, PlantGene LibraryGenetic MarkersGenotypeIntronsMedicago truncatulaMicrosatellite RepeatsGenetic MarkersTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID21615673
PMCPMC3437486
OpenAlexW2119135342

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.