Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26900542›Full record

ArticleSpringerPlus2016

Assessment of genetic diversity, population structure and relationships in Indian and non-Indian genotypes of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn) using genomic SSR markers.

M Ramakrishnan, S Antony Ceasar, V Duraipandiyan, N A Al-Dhabi, S Ignacimuthu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
14.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Finger Millet [Frontiers in plant science · 2018
    Review
  14. Analysis of spatial distribution of genetic diversity and validation of Indian foxtail millet core collection.Physiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Gene Discovery and Advances in Finger Millet [Frontiers in plant science · 2016
    Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M RamakrishnanDivision of Plant Biotechnology, Entomology Research Institute, Loyola College, Chennai, 600 034 India.
S Antony CeasarDivision of Plant Biotechnology, Entomology Research Institute, Loyola College, Chennai, 600 034 India ; Faculty of Biological Sciences, Centre for Plant Sciences and School of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT UK.
V DuraipandiyanDivision of Plant Biotechnology, Entomology Research Institute, Loyola College, Chennai, 600 034 India ; Department of Botany and Microbiology, Addiriyah Chair for Environmental Studies, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O.Box. 2455, Riyadh, 11451 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
N A Al-DhabiDepartment of Botany and Microbiology, Addiriyah Chair for Environmental Studies, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O.Box. 2455, Riyadh, 11451 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
S IgnacimuthuDivision of Plant Biotechnology, Entomology Research Institute, Loyola College, Chennai, 600 034 India ; Visiting Professor Program, Deanship of Scientific Research, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O.Box. 2455, Riyadh, 11451 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
King Saud University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We evaluated the genetic variation and population structure in Indian and non-Indian genotypes of finger millet using 87 genomic SSR primers. The 128 finger millet genotypes were collected and genomic DNA was isolated. Eighty-seven genomic SSR primers with 60-70 % GC contents were used for PCR analysis of 128 finger millet genotypes. The PCR products were separated and visualized on a 6 % polyacrylamide gel followed by silver staining. The data were used to estimate major allele frequency using Power Marker v3.0. Dendrograms were constructed based on the Jaccard's similarity coefficient. Statistical fitness and population structure analyses were performed to find the genetic diversity. The mean major allele frequency was 0.92; the means of polymorphic alleles were 2.13 per primer and 1.45 per genotype; the average polymorphism was 59.94 % per primer and average PIC value was 0.44 per primer. Indian genotypes produced an additional 0.21 allele than non-Indian genotypes. Gene diversity was in the range from 0.02 to 0.35. The average heterozygosity was 0.11, close to 100 % homozygosity. The highest inbreeding coefficient was observed with SSR marker UGEP67. The Jaccard's similarity coefficient value ranged from 0.011 to 0.836. The highest similarity value was 0.836 between genotypes DPI009-04 and GPU-45. Indian genotypes were placed in Eleusine coracana major cluster (EcMC) 1 along with 6 non-Indian genotypes. AMOVA showed that molecular variance in genotypes from various geographical regions was 4 %; among populations it was 3 % and within populations it was 93 %. PCA scatter plot analysis showed that GPU-28, GPU-45 and DPI009-04 were closely dispersed in first component axis. In structural analysis, the genotypes were divided into three subpopulations (SP1, SP2 and SP3). All the three subpopulations had an admixture of alleles and no pure line was observed. These analyses confirmed that all the genotypes were genetically diverse and had been grouped based on their geographic regions.

Indexed as

AMOVABaysian statisticsFinger milletGenetic diversityPCAPopulation structure

Identifiers

PMID26900542
PMCPMC4749518
OpenAlexW2258937999

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.