ArticleMolecular genetics and genomics : MGG2014
Sequence analysis reveals genomic factors affecting EST-SSR primer performance and polymorphism.
Article in Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- De novo transcriptome sequencing and assembly from apomictic and sexual Eragrostis curvula genotypes.PloS one · 2017Article
- Large-scale developing of simple sequence repeat markers and probing its correlation with ramie (Boehmeria nivea L.) fiber quality.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2016Article
- Development and Validation of EST-SSR Markers from the Transcriptome of Adzuki Bean (Vigna angularis).PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was to explore genomic factors affecting the performance and polymorphism of 340 randomly selected EST-SSR (expressed sequence tag-simple sequence repeat) primers through BLAST of primer sequences to a reference genome. Genotyping showed 111 failed and 229 succeeded. The failed types included "no peaks" (NP, 69 primers), "weak peaks" (WP, 30), and "multiple peaks" (MP, 12). The successful types were divided into HM (homozygous between two selected parents, 78 primers) and HT (heterozygous at least in one parent, 151 primers). The BLAST revealed primer alignment status, genomic amplicon size (GAS), and genomic and expressed amplicon size difference (ASD). The alignment status was categorized as: "no hits found" (NHF); "multiple partial alignments" (MPA); "single partial alignment" (SPA); "multiple full alignments" (MFA); and "single full alignment" (SFA). NHF and partial alignment (PA) mainly resulted from discrepant nucleotides in contig-derived primers. The ASD separated 247 non-NHF primers into: "deletion", "same size", "insertion", "intron (GAS ≤500)", "intron (GAS >500)", and "error" categories. Most SFA primers were successful. About 88 % "error", 53 % NHF primers, and 47 % "intron (GAS >500)" failed. The "deletion" and "insertion" primers had the higher HT rates, and the "same size" had the highest HM rate. Optimized primer selection criteria are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24948352What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.