Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28644507›Full record

ArticleGenetics and molecular biology

Intrachromosomal karyotype asymmetry in Orchidaceae.

Enoque Medeiros-Neto, Felipe Nollet, Ana Paula Moraes, Leonardo P Felix

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics and molecular biology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Enoque Medeiros-NetoDepartamento de Ciências Biológicas, Laboratório de Citogenética Vegetal, Centro de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Campus II, Areia, PB, Brazil.
Felipe NolletDepartamento de Ciências Biológicas, Laboratório de Citogenética Vegetal, Centro de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Campus II, Areia, PB, Brazil.
Ana Paula MoraesDepartamento de Genética, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Estadual Paulista "Júlio de Mesquita Filho", Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
Leonardo P FelixDepartamento de Ciências Biológicas, Laboratório de Citogenética Vegetal, Centro de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Campus II, Areia, PB, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The asymmetry indexes have helped cytotaxonomists to interpret and classify plant karyotypes for species delimitation efforts. However, there is no consensus about the best method to calculate the intrachromosomal asymmetry. The present study aimed to compare different intrachromosomal asymmetry indexes in order to indicate which are more efficient for the estimation of asymmetry in different groups of orchids. Besides, we aimed to compare our results with the Orchidaceae phylogenetic proposal to test the hypothesis of Stebbins (1971). Through a literature review, karyotypes were selected and analyzed comparatively with ideal karyotypes in a cluster analysis. All karyotypes showed some level of interchromosomal asymmetry, ranging from slightly asymmetric to moderately asymmetric. The five tested intrachromosomal asymmetry indexes indicated Sarcoglottis grandiflora as the species with the most symmetrical karyotype and Christensonella pachyphylla with the most asymmetrical karyotype. In the cluster analysis, the largest number of species were grouped with the intermediary ideal karyotypes B or C. Considering our results, we recommend the combined use of at least two indexes, especially Ask% or A1 with Syi, for cytotaxonomic analysis in groups of orchids. In an evolutionary perspective, our results support Stebbins' hypothesis that asymmetric karyotypes derive from a symmetric karyotypes.

Identifiers

PMID28644507
PMCPMC5596371

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.