Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22207165›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2011

Crop genomics: advances and applications.

Peter L Morrell, Edward S Buckler, Jeffrey Ross-Ibarra

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 200 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
200citing papers in PubMed
26.0field-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

200 citing papers in PubMed, 517 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. In silico prediction of variant effects: promises and limitations for precision plant breeding.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Fertility restorer geneHorticulture research · 2024
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

140 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Peter L MorrellDepartment of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA. pmorrell@umn.edu
Edward S Buckler
Jeffrey Ross-Ibarra
Cornell University · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The completion of reference genome sequences for many important crops and the ability to perform high-throughput resequencing are providing opportunities for improving our understanding of the history of plant domestication and to accelerate crop improvement. Crop plant comparative genomics is being transformed by these data and a new generation of experimental and computational approaches. The future of crop improvement will be centred on comparisons of individual plant genomes, and some of the best opportunities may lie in using combinations of new genetic mapping strategies and evolutionary analyses to direct and optimize the discovery and use of genetic variation. Here we review such strategies and insights that are emerging.

Indexed as

Genome, PlantGenomicsCrops, AgriculturalEvolution, MolecularHigh-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

Identifiers

PMID22207165
OpenAlexW2042827641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.