Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22173720›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology reports2012

Studies on resources of genetic diversity in conservative flocks of geese using microsatellite DNA polymorphic markers.

Rafał Parada, Juliusz Książkiewicz, Magdalena Kawka, Kazimierz Jaszczak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology reports, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Survey of genetic structure of geese using novel microsatellite markers.Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences · 2018
    Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Rafał ParadaPolish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Genetics and Animal Breeding, Jastrzebiec, 05-552, Wólka Kosowska, Poland. R.Parada@ighz.pl
Juliusz Książkiewicz
Magdalena Kawka
Kazimierz Jaszczak

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The studies conducted aimed at evaluating the genetic diversity within and between varieties of conservative flocks of geese, using the polymorphism of 14 microsatellite sequences. The experimental material included conservative flocks of geese the following indigenous breeds and varieties kept in Poland: Kielecka (Ki), Kartuska (Ka), Lubelska (Lu), Suvalska (Su), Rypinska (Ry), Sub-Carpathian (SC), Hunched Beak (HB) and Pomeranian (Po). Among the 14 microsatellite sequences a total of 97 microsatellite alleles were identified. The number of alleles at one locus ranged from 3 to 19. In the overall pool of 97 alleles, 26 (26.8%) were specific for individual breeds and varieties of geese. The values of the expected heterozygosity (He) for individual geese ranged from 0.38 (Sub-Carpathian) to 0.51 (HB). Similarly, the mean values for the observed heterozygosity (Ho) ranged from 0.45 (Po) to 0.55 (Ki and Su). The polymorphic information content reached the highest value of 0.80 at loci CKW21 (Ki) and TTUCG5 (Po and Su). The greatest genetic distance was observed between the HB and Ry (0.44) and between the HB and Po (0.39) varieties, while the smallest-between the Lu and Po as well as Lu and Ki (0.028) varieties. The phylogenetic tree, elaborated on the basis of the genetic distances, clearly confirms the specificity of the HB goose as compared to the remaining breeds and varieties.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationPolymorphism, GeneticAllelesAnimalsBreedingGeeseGenetic LociGenetic MarkersHeterozygoteInbreedingMicrosatellite RepeatsPhylogenyGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID22173720
PMCPMC3310985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.