Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27790830›Full record

ReviewMolecular ecology resources2017

Strategies for complete plastid genome sequencing.

Alex D Twyford, Rob W Ness

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular ecology resources, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing 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

100 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. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The complete chloroplast genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2025
    Article

40 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Alex D TwyfordInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, Ashworth Laboratories, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3FL, UK.
Rob W NessDepartment of Biology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plastid sequencing is an essential tool in the study of plant evolution. This high-copy organelle is one of the most technically accessible regions of the genome, and its sequence conservation makes it a valuable region for comparative genome evolution, phylogenetic analysis and population studies. Here, we discuss recent innovations and approaches for de novo plastid assembly that harness genomic tools. We focus on technical developments including low-cost sequence library preparation approaches for genome skimming, enrichment via hybrid baits and methylation-sensitive capture, sequence platforms with higher read outputs and longer read lengths, and automated tools for assembly. These developments allow for a much more streamlined assembly than via conventional short-range PCR. Although newer methods make complete plastid sequencing possible for any land plant or green alga, there are still challenges for producing finished plastomes particularly from herbarium material or from structurally divergent plastids such as those of parasitic plants.

Indexed as

Genome, PlastidComputational BiologyDNA, ChloroplastGenomicsPlantsSequence Analysis, DNADNA, Chloroplastchloroplastgenomicnext-generation sequencingplant evolutionplastid

Identifiers

PMID27790830
PMCPMC6849563

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.