ArticlePlant cell reports2011
Assessment of simple marker-free genetic transformation techniques in alfalfa.
Article in Plant cell reports, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Insight into T-DNA Integration Events in Medicago sativa.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Article
- Assessment of heat shock protein 70 induction by heat in alfalfa varieties and constitutive overexpression in transgenic plants.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Methods to avoid the presence of selectable marker genes (SMG) in transgenic plants are available but not implemented in many crop species. We assessed the efficiency of simple marker-free Agrobacterium-mediated transformation techniques in alfalfa: regeneration without selection, or marker-less, and co-transformation with two vectors, one containing the SMG and one containing a non-selected gene. To easily estimate the efficiency of marker-less transformation, the nptII and the GUS markers were used as non-selected genes. After Agrobacterium treatment, somatic embryos were regenerated without selection. The percentage of transgenic embryos was determined by a second cycle of regeneration using the embryos as starting material, in the presence of kanamycin, by PCR screening of T1 progenies, and by the GUS test. In two experiments, from 0 to 1.7% of the somatic embryos were transgenic. Co-transformation was performed with two vectors, one with the hemL SMG and one with the unselected nptII gene, each carried by a different culture of Agrobacterium. Only 15 putative co-transformed plants were regenerated from two experiments, with an average co-transformation percentage of 3.7. Southern blot hybridizations and/or T(1) progeny segregation were used to confirm transgene integration, and qPCR was also used to estimate the T-DNA copy number. In the T(1) progenies obtained by crossing with a non-transgenic pollinator, marker-free segregants were obtained. Both marker-free approaches showed very low efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.