Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23429904›Full record

ArticleTAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik2013

Population structure, genetic diversity and linkage disequilibrium in elite winter wheat assessed with SNP and SSR markers.

Tobias Würschum, Simon M Langer, C Friedrich H Longin, Viktor Korzun, Eduard Akhunov, Erhard Ebmeyer, Ralf Schachschneider, Johannes Schacht, Ebrahim Kazman, Jochen C Reif

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing 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

81 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 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

10 authors.

Tobias WürschumState Plant Breeding Institute, University of Hohenheim, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany. tobias.wuerschum@uni-hohenheim.de
Simon M Langer
C Friedrich H Longin
Viktor Korzun
Eduard Akhunov
Erhard Ebmeyer
Ralf Schachschneider
Johannes Schacht
Ebrahim Kazman
Jochen C Reif

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern genomics approaches rely on the availability of high-throughput and high-density genotyping platforms. A major breakthrough in wheat genotyping was the development of an SNP array. In this study, we used a diverse panel of 172 elite European winter wheat lines to evaluate the utility of the SNP array for genomic analyses in wheat germplasm derived from breeding programs. We investigated population structure and genetic relatedness and found that the results obtained with SNP and SSR markers differ. This suggests that additional research is required to determine the optimum approach for the investigation of population structure and kinship. Our analysis of linkage disequilibrium (LD) showed that LD decays within approximately 5-10 cM. Moreover, we found that LD is variable along chromosomes. Our results suggest that the number of SNPs needs to be increased further to obtain a higher coverage of the chromosomes. Taken together, SNPs can be a valuable tool for genomics approaches and for a knowledge-based improvement of wheat.

Indexed as

Genetics, PopulationGenetic VariationLinkage DisequilibriumBreedingEuropeGenomicsMicrosatellite RepeatsPolymorphism, Single NucleotideTriticum

Identifiers

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.