Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26635852›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2015

Association Analysis of Grain-setting Rates in Apical and Basal Spikelets in Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.).

Jie Guo, Yong Zhang, Weiping Shi, Boqiao Zhang, Jingjuan Zhang, Yanhao Xu, Xiaoming Cheng, Kai Cheng, Xueyong Zhang, Chenyang Hao and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

11 authors.

Jie GuoKey Laboratory of Wheat Biology and Genetic Improvement for Low and Middle Yangtze Valley (Ministry of Agriculture), Lixiahe Agricultural Institute of Jiangsu Province Yangzhou, China ; Institute for Chemical Ecology, Shanxi Agricultural University Taigu, China.
Yong ZhangKey Laboratory of Wheat Biology and Genetic Improvement for Low and Middle Yangtze Valley (Ministry of Agriculture), Lixiahe Agricultural Institute of Jiangsu Province Yangzhou, China.
Weiping ShiInstitute for Chemical Ecology, Shanxi Agricultural University Taigu, China.
Boqiao ZhangKey Laboratory of Wheat Biology and Genetic Improvement for Low and Middle Yangtze Valley (Ministry of Agriculture), Lixiahe Agricultural Institute of Jiangsu Province Yangzhou, China.
Jingjuan ZhangAgricultural Science, School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University Murdoch, WA, Australia.
Yanhao XuHubei Collaborative Innovation Centre for Grain Industry/College of Agriculture, Yangtze University Jingzhou, China.
Xiaoming ChengKey Laboratory of Wheat Biology and Genetic Improvement for Low and Middle Yangtze Valley (Ministry of Agriculture), Lixiahe Agricultural Institute of Jiangsu Province Yangzhou, China.
Kai ChengKey Laboratory of Wheat Biology and Genetic Improvement for Low and Middle Yangtze Valley (Ministry of Agriculture), Lixiahe Agricultural Institute of Jiangsu Province Yangzhou, China.
Xueyong ZhangKey Laboratory of Crop Gene Resources and Germplasm Enhancement, Ministry of Agriculture/The National Key Facility for Crop Gene Resources and Genetic Improvement/Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences Beijing, China.
Chenyang HaoKey Laboratory of Crop Gene Resources and Germplasm Enhancement, Ministry of Agriculture/The National Key Facility for Crop Gene Resources and Genetic Improvement/Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences Beijing, China.
Shunhe ChengKey Laboratory of Wheat Biology and Genetic Improvement for Low and Middle Yangtze Valley (Ministry of Agriculture), Lixiahe Agricultural Institute of Jiangsu Province Yangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rates of grain-setting in apical and basal spikelets in wheat directly affect the kernel number per spike (KNPS). In this study, 220 wheat lines from 18 Chinese provinces and five foreign countries were used as a natural population. Phenotypic analysis showed differences in grain-setting rates between apical and basal spikelets. The broad-sense heritability of grain-setting rate in apical spikelets (18.7-21.0%) was higher than that for basal spikelets (9.4-16.4%). Significant correlations were found between KNPS and grain numbers in apical (R (2) = 0.40-0.45, P < 0.01) and basal (R (2) = 0.41-0.56, P < 0.01) spikelets. Seventy two of 106 SSR markers were associated with grain setting, 32 for apical spikelets, and 34 for basal spikelets. The SSR loci were located on 17 chromosomes, except 3A, 3D, 4A, and 7D, and explained 3.7-22.9% of the phenotypic variance. Four markers, Xcfa2153-1A 202 , Xgwm186-5A 118 , Xgwm156-3B 319 , and Xgwm537-7B 210 , showed the largest effects on grain numbers in apical and basal spikelets. High grain numbers in apical and basal spikelets were associated with elite alleles. Ningmai 9, Ning 0569, and Yangmai 18 with high grain-setting rates carried larger numbers of favorable alleles. Comparison of grain numbers in basal and apical spikelets of 35 Yangmai and Ningmai lines indicated that the Ningmai lines had better grain-setting rates (mean 21.4) than the Yangmai lines (16.5).

Indexed as

association analysisbread wheatgrain numbers in apical spikeletsgrain numbers in basal spikeletsreleased cultivars

Identifiers

PMID26635852
PMCPMC4653486

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.