Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26053338›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

DNA Marker Transmission and Linkage Analysis in Populations Derived from a Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) x Erianthus arundinaceus Hybrid.

Jian-wen Chen, Fang-ye Lao, Xi-wen Chen, Hai-hua Deng, Rui Liu, Hui-yi He, Cheng Fu, Yong-sheng Chen, Fu-Ye Liu, Qi-wei Li and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Development of an Axiom Sugarcane100K SNP array for genetic map construction and QTL identification.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2019
    Article
  4. Chromosome transmission in BCScientific reports · 2019
    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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jian-wen ChenGuangdong Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Improvement and Biorefinery, Guangzhou Sugarcane Industry Research Institute, Guangzhou, China.
Fang-ye LaoGuangdong Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Improvement and Biorefinery, Guangzhou Sugarcane Industry Research Institute, Guangzhou, China.
Xi-wen ChenGuangdong Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Improvement and Biorefinery, Guangzhou Sugarcane Industry Research Institute, Guangzhou, China.
Hai-hua DengGuangdong Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Improvement and Biorefinery, Guangzhou Sugarcane Industry Research Institute, Guangzhou, China.
Rui LiuGuangdong Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Improvement and Biorefinery, Guangzhou Sugarcane Industry Research Institute, Guangzhou, China.
Hui-yi HeGuangdong Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Improvement and Biorefinery, Guangzhou Sugarcane Industry Research Institute, Guangzhou, China.
Cheng FuGuangdong Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Improvement and Biorefinery, Guangzhou Sugarcane Industry Research Institute, Guangzhou, China.
Yong-sheng ChenGuangdong Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Improvement and Biorefinery, Guangzhou Sugarcane Industry Research Institute, Guangzhou, China.
Fu-Ye LiuGuangdong Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Improvement and Biorefinery, Guangzhou Sugarcane Industry Research Institute, Guangzhou, China.
Qi-wei LiGuangdong Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Improvement and Biorefinery, Guangzhou Sugarcane Industry Research Institute, Guangzhou, China.
Phillip JacksonCSIRO Agriculture, Queensland Bioscience Precinct, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
Karen AitkenCSIRO Agriculture, Queensland Bioscience Precinct, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introgression of Erianthus arundinaceus has been the focus of several sugarcane breeding programs in the world, because the species has desirable traits such as high biomass production, vigour, ratooning ability and good resistance to environmental stresses and disease. In this study four genetic maps were constructed for two intergeneric populations. The first population (BC1) was generated from a cross between an Erianthus/Saccharum hybrid YC96-40 and a commercial sugarcane variety CP84-1198. The second population (BC2) was generated from a cross between YCE01-116, a progeny of the BC1 cross and NJ57-416, a commercial sugarcane cultivar. Markers across both populations were generated using 35 AFLP and 23 SSR primer pairs. A total of 756 and 728 polymorphic markers were scored in the BC1 and BC2 populations, respectively. In the BC1 population, a higher proportion of markers was derived from the Erianthus ancestor than those from the Saccharum ancestor Badila. In the BC2 population, both the number and proportion of markers derived from Erianthus were approximately half of those in the BC1 population. Linkage analysis led to the construction of 38, 57, 36 and 47 linkage groups (LGs) for YC96-40, CP84-1198, YCE01-116, and NJ57-416, encompassing 116, 174, 97 and 159 markers (including single dose, double dose and bi-parental markers), respectively. These LGs could be further placed into four, five, five and six homology groups (HGs), respectively, based on information from multi-allelic SSR markers and repulsion phase linkages detected between LGs. Analysis of repulsion phase linkage indicated that Erianthus behaved like a true autopolyploid.

Indexed as

Crosses, GeneticGenetic LinkageHybridization, GeneticAmplified Fragment Length Polymorphism AnalysisChromosome MappingDNA, PlantGenetic MarkersMicrosatellite RepeatsPedigreeSaccharumDNA, PlantGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID26053338
PMCPMC4459986
OpenAlexW621228589

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.