Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26670088›Full record

ArticlePlant, cell & environment2016

An evaluation of new and established methods to determine T-DNA copy number and homozygosity in transgenic plants.

Katarzyna Głowacka, Johannes Kromdijk, Lauriebeth Leonelli, Krishna K Niyogi, Tom E Clemente, Stephen P Long

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant, cell & environment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Antisense reduction in NADP-ME in the CThe New phytologist · 2026
    Article
  3. Binary vector origin predictably determinesbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Adapting CProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Katarzyna GłowackaCarl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois, 1206 W Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1883-6925
Johannes KromdijkCarl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois, 1206 W Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Lauriebeth LeonelliHoward Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, 111 Koshland Hall, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720-3102, USA.
Krishna K NiyogiHoward Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, 111 Koshland Hall, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720-3102, USA.
Tom E ClementeCenter for Plant Science Innovation, E324 Beadle Center, 1901 Vine Street, Lincoln, NE, 68588, USA.
Stephen P LongCarl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois, 1206 W Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USHoward Hughes Medical Institute · USCenter For Social Innovation · US

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stable transformation of plants is a powerful tool for hypothesis testing. A rapid and reliable evaluation method of the transgenic allele for copy number and homozygosity is vital in analysing these transformations. Here the suitability of Southern blot analysis, thermal asymmetric interlaced (TAIL-)PCR, quantitative (q)PCR and digital droplet (dd)PCR to estimate T-DNA copy number, locus complexity and homozygosity were compared in transgenic tobacco. Southern blot analysis and ddPCR on three generations of transgenic offspring with contrasting zygosity and copy number were entirely consistent, whereas TAIL-PCR often underestimated copy number. qPCR deviated considerably from the Southern blot results and had lower precision and higher variability than ddPCR. Comparison of segregation analyses and ddPCR of T1 progeny from 26 T0 plants showed that at least 19% of the lines carried multiple T-DNA insertions per locus, which can lead to unstable transgene expression. Segregation analyses failed to detect these multiple copies, presumably because of their close linkage. This shows the importance of routine T-DNA copy number estimation. Based on our results, ddPCR is the most suitable method, because it is as reliable as Southern blot analysis yet much faster. A protocol for this application of ddPCR to large plant genomes is provided.

Indexed as

Gene DosageBlotting, SouthernChromosome SegregationCrosses, GeneticDNA, BacterialGenetic LociHomozygoteNicotianaPlants, Genetically ModifiedReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of ResultsDNA, BacterialT-DNAddPCRdigital droplet PCRqPCRsegregation analysisselectable markerSouthern blotTAIL-PCRtransformation

Identifiers

PMID26670088
PMCPMC5021166
OpenAlexW2415730768

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.