Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24879607›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2014

Fluorescence in situ hybridization and optical mapping to correct scaffold arrangement in the tomato genome.

Lindsay A Shearer, Lorinda K Anderson, Hans de Jong, Sandra Smit, José Luis Goicoechea, Bruce A Roe, Axin Hua, James J Giovannoni, Stephen M Stack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Genomic variation across distribution of Micro-Tom, a model cultivar of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum).DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Integrating Genetic and Chromosome Maps ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Lindsay A ShearerDepartment of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523.
Lorinda K AndersonDepartment of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523.
Hans de JongLaboratory of Genetics, Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR), Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Sandra SmitLaboratory of Bioinformatics, WUR, Droevendaalsesteeg1, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.
José Luis GoicoecheaArizona Genomics Institute, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721.
Bruce A RoeDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Stephenson Research and Technology Center, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019.
Axin HuaDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Stephenson Research and Technology Center, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019.
James J GiovannoniDepartment of Plant Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853.
Stephen M StackDepartment of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Stephen.Stack@colostate.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The order and orientation (arrangement) of all 91 sequenced scaffolds in the 12 pseudomolecules of the recently published tomato (Solanum lycopersicum, 2n = 2x = 24) genome sequence were positioned based on marker order in a high-density linkage map. Here, we report the arrangement of these scaffolds determined by two independent physical methods, bacterial artificial chromosome-fluorescence in situ hybridization (BAC-FISH) and optical mapping. By localizing BACs at the ends of scaffolds to spreads of tomato synaptonemal complexes (pachytene chromosomes), we showed that 45 scaffolds, representing one-third of the tomato genome, were arranged differently than predicted by the linkage map. These scaffolds occur mostly in pericentric heterochromatin where 77% of the tomato genome is located and where linkage mapping is less accurate due to reduced crossing over. Although useful for only part of the genome, optical mapping results were in complete agreement with scaffold arrangement by FISH but often disagreed with scaffold arrangement based on the linkage map. The scaffold arrangement based on FISH and optical mapping changes the positions of hundreds of markers in the linkage map, especially in heterochromatin. These results suggest that similar errors exist in pseudomolecules from other large genomes that have been assembled using only linkage maps to predict scaffold arrangement, and these errors can be corrected using FISH and/or optical mapping. Of note, BAC-FISH also permits estimates of the sizes of gaps between scaffolds, and unanchored BACs are often visualized by FISH in gaps between scaffolds and thus represent starting points for filling these gaps.

Indexed as

Chromosome MappingChromosomes, PlantDNA, PlantGenetic LinkageGenome, PlantIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceSolanum lycopersicumSynaptonemal ComplexDNA, Plantfluorescence in situ hybridizationgenomeoptical mappingscaffoldstomato

Identifiers

PMID24879607
PMCPMC4132171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.