Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27280295›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

The Development of Quality Control Genotyping Approaches: A Case Study Using Elite Maize Lines.

Jiafa Chen, Cristian Zavala, Noemi Ortega, Cesar Petroli, Jorge Franco, Juan Burgueño, Denise E Costich, Sarah J Hearne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  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

8 authors.

Jiafa ChenInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); Texcoco; Edo. De Mexico; Mexico CP 56237.
Cristian ZavalaInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); Texcoco; Edo. De Mexico; Mexico CP 56237.
Noemi OrtegaInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); Texcoco; Edo. De Mexico; Mexico CP 56237.
Cesar PetroliInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); Texcoco; Edo. De Mexico; Mexico CP 56237.
Jorge FrancoInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); Texcoco; Edo. De Mexico; Mexico CP 56237.
Juan BurgueñoInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); Texcoco; Edo. De Mexico; Mexico CP 56237.
Denise E CostichInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); Texcoco; Edo. De Mexico; Mexico CP 56237.
Sarah J HearneInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); Texcoco; Edo. De Mexico; Mexico CP 56237.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quality control (QC) of germplasm identity and purity is a critical component of breeding and conservation activities. SNP genotyping technologies and increased availability of markers provide the opportunity to employ genotyping as a low-cost and robust component of this QC. In the public sector available low-cost SNP QC genotyping methods have been developed from a very limited panel of markers of 1,000 to 1,500 markers without broad selection of the most informative SNPs. Selection of optimal SNPs and definition of appropriate germplasm sampling in addition to platform section impact on logistical and resource-use considerations for breeding and conservation applications when mainstreaming QC. In order to address these issues, we evaluated the selection and use of SNPs for QC applications from large DArTSeq data sets generated from CIMMYT maize inbred lines (CMLs). Two QC genotyping strategies were developed, the first is a "rapid QC", employing a small number of SNPs to identify potential mislabeling of seed packages or plots, the second is a "broad QC", employing a larger number of SNP, used to identify each germplasm entry and to measure heterogeneity. The optimal marker selection strategies combined the selection of markers with high minor allele frequency, sampling of clustered SNP in proportion to marker cluster distance and selecting markers that maintain a uniform genomic distribution. The rapid and broad QC SNP panels selected using this approach were further validated using blind test assessments of related re-generation samples. The influence of sampling within each line was evaluated. Sampling 192 individuals would result in close to 100% possibility of detecting a 5% contamination in the entry, and approximately a 98% probability to detect a 2% contamination of the line. These results provide a framework for the establishment of QC genotyping. A comparison of financial and time costs for use of these approaches across different platforms is discussed providing a framework for institutions involved in maize conservation and breeding to assess the resource use effectiveness of QC genotyping. Application of these research findings, in combination with existing QC approaches, will ensure the regeneration, distribution and use in breeding of true to type inbred germplasm. These findings also provide an effective approach to optimize SNP selection for QC genotyping in other species.

Indexed as

Polymorphism, Single NucleotideGenetic MarkersGenotyping TechniquesQuality ControlZea maysGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID27280295
PMCPMC4900658

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.