ArticleGenetica2015
Informativeness of minisatellite and microsatellite markers for genetic analysis in papaya.
Article in Genetica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate information on minisatellite and microsatellite markers in papaya (Carica papaya L.). Forty minisatellites and 91 microsatellites were used for genotyping 24 papaya accessions. Estimates of genetic diversity, genetic linkage and analyses of population structure were compared. A lower average number of alleles per locus was observed in minisatellites (3.10) compared with microsatellites (3.57), although the minisatellites showed rarer alleles (18.54 %) compared with microsatellite (13.85 %). Greater expected (He = 0.52) and observed (Ho = 0.16) heterozygosity was observed in the microsatellites compared with minisatellites (He = 0.42 and Ho = 0.11), possibly due to the high number of hermaphroditic accessions, resulting in high rates of self-fertilization. The polymorphic information content and Shannon-Wiener diversity were also higher for microsatellites (from 0.47 to 1.10, respectively) compared with minisatellite (0.38 and 0.85, respectively). The probability of paternity exclusion was high for both markers (>0.999), and the combined probability of identity was from 1.65(-13) to 4.33(-38) for mini- and micro-satellites, respectively, which indicates that both types of markers are ideal for genetic analysis. The Bayesian analysis indicated the formation of two groups (K = 2) for both markers, although the minisatellites indicated a substructure (K = 4). A greater number of accessions with a low probability of assignment to specific groups were observed for microsatellites. Collectively, the results indicated higher informativeness of microsatellites. However, the lower informative power of minisatellites may be offset by the use of larger number of loci. Furthermore, minisatellites are subject to less error in genotyping because there is greater power to detect genotyping systems when larger motifs are used.
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.