Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24166253›Full record

ArticleTAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik1996

Abundance and length polymorphism of microsatellite repeats in Beta vulgaris L.

M Mörchen, J Cuguen, G Michaelis, C Hänni, P Saumitou-Laprade

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

M MörchenLaboratoire de Génétique et Evolution des Populations Végétales, URA-CNRS 1185, Bât. SN2, Université de Lille 1, F-59655, Villeneuve d'Ascq Cedex, France.
J Cuguen
G Michaelis
C Hänni
P Saumitou-Laprade

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Simple sequence repeats (SSRs) are known to exhibit high degrees of variability even among closely related individuals. Their usage as nuclear genetic markers requires their conversion into sequence-tagged sites (STSs). In this paper we present the development of simple sequences as STSs for Beta vulgaris. This species comprises wild, cultivated, and weedy forms; the latter are thought to originate from accidental hybridisation between the other two. Two partial genomic libraries were screened with simple sequence motifs (AT, CA, CT, ATT, GTG, and CA, CT, respectively). Clones of 22 CA, nine CT, eight ATT, and one GTG sequence were obtained. AT micro satellites were present in compound motifs, not recognised by the probe. Sequence comparisons revealed that 20 CA clones containing short motifs (<16 bp) were variants of a previously described approximately 320-bp satellite DNA (Schmidt et al. 1991), and hence did not correspond to unique loci. Polymorphism of one (ATT)15 and three (CT)n, with n=15, 17 and 26, was detected by PCR on a sample of 64 plants from the different forms of B. vulgaris. 13 (ATT), 13 (CT), nine (CT) alleles and one (CT) allele were detected. One of the ATT alleles was much larger than the others (>800 bp). Genetic variability was high among wild beets, lower among cultivated beets, and intermediate among weed beets. One allele of each locus was found at high frequencies in cultivated beets and, to a lower extent, in weed beets. The combination of three polymorphic loci allowed the individual identification of 17/17 wild and 15/15 weed beets, and 21/32, mostly homozygous, cultivated beets.

Identifiers

PMID24166253

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.