Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27794028›Full record

ArticleGenetics2016

Sequence of the Sugar Pine Megagenome.

Kristian A Stevens, Jill L Wegrzyn, Aleksey Zimin, Daniela Puiu, Marc Crepeau, Charis Cardeno, Robin Paul, Daniel Gonzalez-Ibeas, Maxim Koriabine, Ann E Holtz-Morris and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed
–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

84 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Needle and Branch Trait Variation Analysis and Associated SNP Loci Mining inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Identification and Expression Profile ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article

24 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

23 authors.

Kristian A StevensDepartment of Evolution and Ecology, University of California at Davis, California 95616 kastevens@ucdavis.edu chlangley@ucdavis.edu.
Jill L WegrzynDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.
Aleksey ZiminInstitute for Physical Sciences and Technology (IPST), University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Daniela PuiuCenter for Computational Biology, McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Marc CrepeauDepartment of Evolution and Ecology, University of California at Davis, California 95616.
Charis CardenoDepartment of Evolution and Ecology, University of California at Davis, California 95616.
Robin PaulDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.
Daniel Gonzalez-IbeasDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.
Maxim KoriabineChildren's Hospital Oakland Research Institute, California.
Ann E Holtz-MorrisChildren's Hospital Oakland Research Institute, California.
Pedro J Martínez-GarcíaDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California at Davis, California.
Uzay U SezenDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.
Guillaume MarçaisInstitute for Physical Sciences and Technology (IPST), University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Kathy JermstadUnited States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Placerville, California.
Patrick E McGuireDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California at Davis, California.
Carol A LoopstraDepartment of Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
John M DavisSchool of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Andrew EckertDepartment of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
Pieter de JongChildren's Hospital Oakland Research Institute, California.
James A YorkeInstitute for Physical Sciences and Technology (IPST), University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Steven L SalzbergCenter for Computational Biology, McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
David B NealeDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California at Davis, California.
Charles H LangleyDepartment of Evolution and Ecology, University of California at Davis, California 95616 kastevens@ucdavis.edu chlangley@ucdavis.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Until very recently, complete characterization of the megagenomes of conifers has remained elusive. The diploid genome of sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana Dougl.) has a highly repetitive, 31 billion bp genome. It is the largest genome sequenced and assembled to date, and the first from the subgenus Strobus, or white pines, a group that is notable for having the largest genomes among the pines. The genome represents a unique opportunity to investigate genome "obesity" in conifers and white pines. Comparative analysis of P. lambertiana and P. taeda L. reveals new insights on the conservation, age, and diversity of the highly abundant transposable elements, the primary factor determining genome size. Like most North American white pines, the principal pathogen of P. lambertiana is white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola J.C. Fischer ex Raben.). Identification of candidate genes for resistance to this pathogen is of great ecological importance. The genome sequence afforded us the opportunity to make substantial progress on locating the major dominant gene for simple resistance hypersensitive response, Cr1 We describe new markers and gene annotation that are both tightly linked to Cr1 in a mapping population, and associated with Cr1 in unrelated sugar pine individuals sampled throughout the species' range, creating a solid foundation for future mapping. This genomic variation and annotated candidate genes characterized in our study of the Cr1 region are resources for future marker-assisted breeding efforts as well as for investigations of fundamental mechanisms of invasive disease and evolutionary response.

Indexed as

Genome, PlantBasidiomycotaDNA Transposable ElementsGenetic VariationGenome SizePinusPlant ImmunityDNA Transposable Elementsconifer genometransposable elementswhite pine blister rust

Identifiers

PMID27794028
PMCPMC5161289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.