Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27328683›Full record

ArticleAnnals of botany2016

Global Genome Biodiversity Network: saving a blueprint of the Tree of Life - a botanical perspective.

O Seberg, G Droege, K Barker, J A Coddington, V Funk, M Gostel, G Petersen, P P Smith

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of botany, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Green plant genomes: What we know in an era of rapidly expanding opportunities.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Earth BioGenome Project: Sequencing life for the future of life.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

O SebergNatural History Museum of Denmark, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Sølvgade 83, opg. S, DK-1307 Copenhagen, Denmark oles@snm.ku.dk.
G DroegeBotanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Str. 6-8, D-14195 Berlin, Germany.
K BarkerNational Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, USA.
J A CoddingtonNational Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, USA.
V FunkNational Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, USA.
M GostelNational Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, USA.
G PetersenNatural History Museum of Denmark, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Sølvgade 83, opg. S, DK-1307 Copenhagen, Denmark.
P P SmithBotanic Gardens Conservation International, 199 Kew Road, Richmond TW9 3BW, Surrey, UK.
National Museum of Natural History · USFreie Universität Berlin · DENatural History Museum Aarhus · DKSmithsonian Institution · USUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic research depends upon access to DNA or tissue collected and preserved according to high-quality standards. At present, the collections in most natural history museums do not sufficiently address these standards, making them often hard or impossible to use for whole-genome sequencing or transcriptomics. In response to these challenges, natural history museums, herbaria, botanical gardens and other stakeholders have started to build high-quality biodiversity biobanks. Unfortunately, information about these collections remains fragmented, scattered and largely inaccessible. Without a central registry or even an overview of relevant institutions, it is difficult and time-consuming to locate the needed samples. SCOPE: The Global Genome Biodiversity Network (GGBN) was created to fill this vacuum by establishing a one-stop access point for locating samples meeting quality standards for genome-scale applications, while complying with national and international legislations and conventions. Increased accessibility to genomic samples will further genomic research and development, conserve genetic resources, help train the next generation of genome researchers and raise the visibility of biodiversity collections. Additionally, the availability of a data-sharing platform will facilitate identification of gaps in the collections, thereby empowering targeted sampling efforts, increasing the breadth and depth of preservation of genetic diversity. The GGBN is rapidly growing and currently has 41 members. The GGBN covers all branches of the Tree of Life, except humans, but here the focus is on a pilot project with emphasis on 'harvesting' the Tree of Life for vascular plant taxa to enable genome-level studies.

conclusionWhile current efforts are centred on getting the existing samples of all GGBN members online, a pilot project, GGI-Gardens, has been launched as proof of concept. Over the next 6 years GGI-Gardens aims to add to the GGBN high-quality genetic material from at least one species from each of the approx. 460 vascular plant families and one species from half of the approx. 15 000 vascular plant genera.

Indexed as

BiodiversityEcosystemGenomicsConservation of Natural ResourcesGardensHumansPilot ProjectsPlantsArboretumbiobanksbiodiversity genomicsbiodiversity repositorybotanic gardensDNA bankinggenome-quality samplesGlobal Genome Initiative

Identifiers

PMID27328683
PMCPMC4998982
OpenAlexW2466643007

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.