Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26068575›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2015

A Consensus Genetic Map for Pinus taeda and Pinus elliottii and Extent of Linkage Disequilibrium in Two Genotype-Phenotype Discovery Populations of Pinus taeda.

Jared W Westbrook, Vikram E Chhatre, Le-Shin Wu, Srikar Chamala, Leandro Gomide Neves, Patricio Muñoz, Pedro J Martínez-García, David B Neale, Matias Kirst, Keithanne Mockaitis and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Genomics of Clinal Local Adaptation inG3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A novel high-density grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) integrated linkage map using GBS in a half-diallel population.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

14 authors.

Jared W WestbrookSchool of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611-0410.
Vikram E ChhatreSouthern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Saucier, Mississippi, 39574.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6627-2832
Le-Shin WuNational Center for Genome Analysis Support, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408.
Srikar ChamalaDepartment of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 Department of Pathology, Immunology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32603 Genetics Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32608.
Leandro Gomide NevesRAPiD Genomics LLC, Gainesville, Florida 32601.
Patricio MuñozDepartment of Agronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32608.
Pedro J Martínez-GarcíaDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, California, 95616.
David B NealeDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, California, 95616.
Matias KirstSchool of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611-0410.
Keithanne MockaitisPervasive Technology Institute, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47408.
C Dana NelsonSouthern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Saucier, Mississippi, 39574.
Gary F PeterSchool of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611-0410.
John M DavisSchool of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32611-0410 cecht@fs.fed.us.
Craig S EchtSouthern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Saucier, Mississippi, 39574 cecht@fs.fed.us.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9330-4051

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A consensus genetic map for Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) and Pinus elliottii (slash pine) was constructed by merging three previously published P. taeda maps with a map from a pseudo-backcross between P. elliottii and P. taeda. The consensus map positioned 3856 markers via genotyping of 1251 individuals from four pedigrees. It is the densest linkage map for a conifer to date. Average marker spacing was 0.6 cM and total map length was 2305 cM. Functional predictions of mapped genes were improved by aligning expressed sequence tags used for marker discovery to full-length P. taeda transcripts. Alignments to the P. taeda genome mapped 3305 scaffold sequences onto 12 linkage groups. The consensus genetic map was used to compare the genome-wide linkage disequilibrium in a population of distantly related P. taeda individuals (ADEPT2) used for association genetic studies and a multiple-family pedigree used for genomic selection (CCLONES). The prevalence and extent of LD was greater in CCLONES as compared to ADEPT2; however, extended LD with LGs or between LGs was rare in both populations. The average squared correlations, r(2), between SNP alleles less than 1 cM apart were less than 0.05 in both populations and r(2) did not decay substantially with genetic distance. The consensus map and analysis of linkage disequilibrium establish a foundation for comparative association mapping and genomic selection in P. taeda and P. elliottii.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsChromosome MappingExpressed Sequence TagsGenetic MarkersGenome, PlantGenotypeLinkage DisequilibriumPedigreePhenotypePinusPinus taedaPolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait LociTranscriptomeGenetic Markerslinkage disequilibriumlinkage mappingpinepopulation structure

Identifiers

PMID26068575
PMCPMC4528325

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.