ArticlePloS one2015
Random Tagging Genotyping by Sequencing (rtGBS), an Unbiased Approach to Locate Restriction Enzyme Sites across the Target Genome.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Genomic architecture of resistance to latania scale (H. lataniae) in kiwifruit (A. chinensis var. chinensis).BMC plant biology · 2023Article
- Turbocharging introgression breeding of perennial fruit crops: a case study on apple.Horticulture research · 2020Article
- Genetic and cytological analyses reveal the recombination landscape of a partially differentiated plant sex chromosome in kiwifruit.BMC plant biology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledGenotyping by sequencing (GBS) is a restriction enzyme based targeted approach developed to reduce the genome complexity and discover genetic markers when a priori sequence information is unavailable. Sufficient coverage at each locus is essential to distinguish heterozygous from homozygous sites accurately. The number of GBS samples able to be pooled in one sequencing lane is limited by the number of restriction sites present in the genome and the read depth required at each site per sample for accurate calling of single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Loci bias was observed using a slight modification of the Elshire et al.
methodsome restriction enzyme sites were represented in higher proportions while others were poorly represented or absent. This bias could be due to the quality of genomic DNA, the endonuclease and ligase reaction efficiency, the distance between restriction sites, the preferential amplification of small library restriction fragments, or bias towards cluster formation of small amplicons during the sequencing process. To overcome these issues, we have developed a GBS method based on randomly tagging genomic DNA (rtGBS). By randomly landing on the genome, we can, with less bias, find restriction sites that are far apart, and undetected by the standard GBS (stdGBS) method. The study comprises two types of biological replicates: six different kiwifruit plants and two independent DNA extractions per plant; and three types of technical replicates: four samples of each DNA extraction, stdGBS vs. rtGBS methods, and two independent library amplifications, each sequenced in separate lanes. A statistically significant unbiased distribution of restriction fragment size by rtGBS showed that this method targeted 49% (39,145) of BamH I sites shared with the reference genome, compared to only 14% (11,513) by stdGBS.
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.