Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26158446›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Parentage Reconstruction in Eucalyptus nitens Using SNPs and Microsatellite Markers: A Comparative Analysis of Marker Data Power and Robustness.

Emily J Telfer, Grahame T Stovold, Yongjun Li, Orzenil B Silva-Junior, Dario G Grattapaglia, Heidi S Dungey

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
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 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Long-distance gene flow inEcology and evolution · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Paternity Assignment in White Guinea Yam (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Emily J TelferScion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.), Whakarewarewa, Rotorua, New Zealand.
Grahame T StovoldScion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.), Whakarewarewa, Rotorua, New Zealand.
Yongjun LiScion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.), Whakarewarewa, Rotorua, New Zealand.
Orzenil B Silva-JuniorLaboratório de Genética Vegetal, EMBRAPA Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia, Brasília, Brazil; Programa de Ciências Genômicas e Biotecnologia, Universidade Católica de Brasília, Brasilia, Brazil.
Dario G GrattapagliaLaboratório de Genética Vegetal, EMBRAPA Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia, Brasília, Brazil; Programa de Ciências Genômicas e Biotecnologia, Universidade Católica de Brasília, Brasilia, Brazil.
Heidi S DungeyScion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.), Whakarewarewa, Rotorua, New Zealand.
Scion · NZBrazilian Agricultural Research Corporation · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pedigree reconstruction using molecular markers enables efficient management of inbreeding in open-pollinated breeding strategies, replacing expensive and time-consuming controlled pollination. This is particularly useful in preferentially outcrossed, insect pollinated Eucalypts known to suffer considerable inbreeding depression from related matings. A single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) marker panel consisting of 106 markers was selected for pedigree reconstruction from the recently developed high-density Eucalyptus Infinium SNP chip (EuCHIP60K). The performance of this SNP panel for pedigree reconstruction in open-pollinated progenies of two Eucalyptus nitens seed orchards was compared with that of two microsatellite panels with 13 and 16 markers respectively. The SNP marker panel out-performed one of the microsatellite panels in the resolution power to reconstruct pedigrees and out-performed both panels with respect to data quality. Parentage of all but one offspring in each clonal seed orchard was correctly matched to the expected seed parent using the SNP marker panel, whereas parentage assignment to less than a third of the expected seed parents were supported using the 13-microsatellite panel. The 16-microsatellite panel supported all but one of the recorded seed parents, one better than the SNP panel, although there was still a considerable level of missing and inconsistent data. SNP marker data was considerably superior to microsatellite data in accuracy, reproducibility and robustness. Although microsatellites and SNPs data provide equivalent resolution for pedigree reconstruction, microsatellite analysis requires more time and experience to deal with the uncertainties of allele calling and faces challenges for data transferability across labs and over time. While microsatellite analysis will continue to be useful for some breeding tasks due to the high information content, existing infrastructure and low operating costs, the multi-species SNP resource available with the EuCHIP60k, opens a whole new array of opportunities for high-throughput, genome-wide or targeted genotyping in species of Eucalyptus.

Indexed as

Polymorphism, Single NucleotideAllelesDNA, PlantEucalyptusGenotypeGenotyping TechniquesInbreedingMicrosatellite RepeatsPlant BreedingPollinationReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, DNADNA, Plant

Identifiers

PMID26158446
PMCPMC4497620
OpenAlexW1503826515

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.