ArticlePloS one2015
Genetic Structure and Relationship Analysis of an Association Population in Jute (Corchorus spp.) Evaluated by SSR Markers.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic diversity and population structure of jute mallow (Corchorus olitorius L.) global collection to guide conservation and breeding.The plant genome · 2026Article
- Genotyping of Commercial EuropeanPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Genetic Evaluation of In Vitro Micropropagated and Regenerated Plants ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Developing and Testing Molecular Markers inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Resolving population structure and genetic differentiation associated with RAD-SNP loci under selection in tossa jute (Corchorus olitorius L.).Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2019Article
- The genetic diversity and relationships of cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis) inbred lines assessed by using SSR markers.PloS one · 2018Article
- A method for genotyping elite breeding stocks of leaf chicory (Cichorium intybus L.) by assaying mapped microsatellite marker loci.BMC research notes · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Population structure and relationship analysis is of great importance in the germplasm utilization and association mapping. Jute, comprised of white jute (C. capsularis L) and dark jute (C. olitorius L), is second to cotton in its commercial significance in the world. Here, we assessed the genetic structure and relationship in a panel of 159 jute accessions from 11 countries and regions using 63 SSRs. The structure analysis divided the 159 jute accessions from white and dark jute into Co and Cc group, further into Co1, Co2, Cc1 and Cc2 subgroups. Out of Cc1 subgroup, 81 accessions were from China and the remaining 10 accessions were from India (2), Japan (5), Thailand, Vietnam (2) and Pakistan (1). Out of Cc2 subgroup, 35 accessions were from China, and the remaining 3 accessions were from India, Pakistan and Thailand respectively. It can be inferred that the genetic background of these jute accessions was not always correlative with their geographical regions. Similar results were found in Co1 and Co2 subgroups. Analysis of molecular variance revealed 81% molecular variation between groups but it was low (19%) within subgroups, which further confirmed the genetic differentiation between the two groups. The genetic relationship analysis showed that the most diverse genotypes were Maliyeshengchangguo and Changguozhongyueyin in dark jute, BZ-2-2, Aidianyehuangma, Yangjuchiyuanguo, Zijinhuangma and Jute 179 in white jute, which could be used as the potential parents in breeding programs for jute improvement. These results would be very useful for association studies and breeding in jute.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.