ArticleSpringerPlus2016
Intraspecific variations in cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum Maton): assessment of genomic diversity by flow cytometry, cytological studies and ISSR analysis.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic Diversity and Differentiation Among Guatemalan Cardamom (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Bridging micro and macroevolution: insights from chromosomal dynamics in plants.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Review
- Comprehensive Evaluation and Selection of Cardamom (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Intraspecific variation in genome size in3 Biotech · 2023Article
- Small cardamom genome: development and utilization of microsatellite markers from a draft genome sequence ofFrontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- A comprehensive review on genomic resources in medicinally and industrially important major spices for future breeding programs: Status, utility and challenges.Current research in food science · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe main goal of the work was to analyse intraspecific variation in Elettaria cardamomum Maton (cardamom) using genome size, cytological studies and molecular marker data. Nuclear DNA content and molecular marker details furnish data on genome size and genetic diversity respectively among the studied accessions and both complement each other for evolutionary and taxonomic studies.
resultsThe relative 2C genome size and total number of base pairs of cardamom was determined through flow cytometric analysis using propidium iodide staining. The nuclear DNA content was estimated in various sections of the species representing individuals from wild and cultivar genotypes following Zea mays L. CE-777 (2C = 5.43 pg) as internal reference standard. Chromosome number from growing root tip was examined following standard protocols. Twenty-six ISSR primers that generated polymorphic bands were used for genetic diversity analysis of the thirty accessions of cardamom. Estimated nuclear 2C DNA content ranged from 2.57 to 3.22 pg demonstrating 1.25-fold variation. The mean amount of 2C nuclear DNA of the cardamom was calculated as 2.87 pg which is equivalent of 2806 Mbp as the diploid genome size. The chromosome number was found to be 2n = 48. Among the thirty accessions of cardamom studied using ISSR markers, C53 (feral from Bonacaud) showed a very prominent level of genetic diversity and was lowest for C96 (Avinash-I, a released variety from Indian Institute of Spices Research, Kozhikode).
conclusionThese analyses revealed the existence of genetic variability within the studied cardamom accessions. The plant specimens also differed significantly in their genome size. However, the genetic variability parameters did not show any correlation with genome size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.