Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26447951›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Genetic Relationship in Cicer Sp. Expose Evidence for Geneflow between the Cultigen and Its Wild Progenitor.

Ruth van Oss, Shahal Abbo, Ravit Eshed, Amir Sherman, Clarice J Coyne, George J Vandemark, Hong-Bin Zhang, Zvi Peleg

Abstract 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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The History of Lentil (Frontiers in plant science · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Ruth van OssThe Robert H. Smith Institute of Plant Sciences and Genetics in Agriculture, The Levi Eshkol School of Agriculture, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel.
Shahal AbboThe Robert H. Smith Institute of Plant Sciences and Genetics in Agriculture, The Levi Eshkol School of Agriculture, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel.
Ravit EshedGenomic unit Plant Sciences Institute, Agricultural Research Organization (ARO)-Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel.
Amir ShermanGenomic unit Plant Sciences Institute, Agricultural Research Organization (ARO)-Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel.
Clarice J CoyneUSDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station, Mail Stop 646402, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America.
George J VandemarkUSDA-ARS Western Regional Plant Introduction Station, Mail Stop 646402, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America.
Hong-Bin ZhangDepartment of Soil and Crop Sciences and Institute for Plant Genomics and Biotechnology, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Zvi PelegThe Robert H. Smith Institute of Plant Sciences and Genetics in Agriculture, The Levi Eshkol School of Agriculture, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a debate concerning mono- or poly-phyletic origins of the Near Eastern crops. In parallel, some authors claim that domestication was not possible within the natural range of the wild progenitors due to wild alleles flow into the nascent crops. Here we address both, the mono- or poly-phyletic origins and the domestications within or without the natural range of the progenitor, debates in order to understand the relationship between domesticated chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and its wild progenitor (C. reticulatum Ladizinsky) with special emphasis on its domestication centre in southeastern Turkey. A set of 103 chickpea cultivars and landraces from the major growing regions alongside wild accessions (C. reticulatum, C. echinospermum P.H Davis and C. bijugum K.H. Rech) sampled across the natural distribution range in eastern Turkey were genotyped with 194 SNPs markers. The genetic affinities between and within the studied taxa were assessed. The analysis suggests a mono-phyletic origin of the cultigen, with several wild accession as likely members of the wild stock of the cultigen. Clear separation between the wild and domesticated germplasm was apparent, with negligible level of admixture. A single C. reticulatum accession shows morphological and allelic signatures of admixture, a likely result of introgression. No evidence of geneflow from the wild into domesticated germplasm was found. The traditional farming systems of southeaster Turkey are characterized by occurrence of sympatric wild progenitor-domesticated forms of chickpea (and likewise cereals and other grain legumes). Therefore, both the authentic crop landraces and the wild populations native to the area are a unique genetic resource. Our results grant support to the notion of domestication within the natural distribution range of the wild progenitor, suggesting that the Neolithic domesticators were fully capable of selecting the desired phenotypes even when facing rare wild-domesticated introgression events.

Indexed as

Genes, PlantCicerCrops, AgriculturalEcosystemGenotypePlant LeavesPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

PMID26447951
PMCPMC4597980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.