Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29263331›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Genome-wide analysis of SSR and ILP markers in trees: diversity profiling, alternate distribution, and applications in duplication.

Xinyao Xia, Lin Lin Luan, Guanghua Qin, Li Fang Yu, Zhi Wei Wang, Wan Chen Dong, Yumin Song, Yuling Qiao, Xian Sheng Zhang, Ya Lin Sang and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Characterization of Microsatellites in theFrontiers in plant science · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xinyao XiaCollege of Forestry, College of Plant Protection, College of Life Sciences, State Key Laboratory of Crop Biology, Agricultural Big-Data Research Center, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an, 271018, China.
Lin Lin LuanCollege of Forestry, College of Plant Protection, College of Life Sciences, State Key Laboratory of Crop Biology, Agricultural Big-Data Research Center, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an, 271018, China.
Guanghua QinShandong Academy of Forestry, Jinan, 250014, China.
Li Fang YuCollege of Forestry, College of Plant Protection, College of Life Sciences, State Key Laboratory of Crop Biology, Agricultural Big-Data Research Center, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an, 271018, China.
Zhi Wei WangCollege of Forestry, College of Plant Protection, College of Life Sciences, State Key Laboratory of Crop Biology, Agricultural Big-Data Research Center, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an, 271018, China.
Wan Chen DongCollege of Forestry, College of Plant Protection, College of Life Sciences, State Key Laboratory of Crop Biology, Agricultural Big-Data Research Center, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an, 271018, China.
Yumin SongShandong Academy of Forestry, Jinan, 250014, China.
Yuling QiaoShandong Academy of Forestry, Jinan, 250014, China.
Xian Sheng ZhangCollege of Forestry, College of Plant Protection, College of Life Sciences, State Key Laboratory of Crop Biology, Agricultural Big-Data Research Center, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an, 271018, China.
Ya Lin SangCollege of Forestry, College of Plant Protection, College of Life Sciences, State Key Laboratory of Crop Biology, Agricultural Big-Data Research Center, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an, 271018, China. sangyl@sdau.edu.cn.
Long YangCollege of Forestry, College of Plant Protection, College of Life Sciences, State Key Laboratory of Crop Biology, Agricultural Big-Data Research Center, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai'an, 271018, China. lyang@sdau.edu.cn.
Shandong Agricultural University · CNShandong Academy of Forestry · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular markers are efficient tools for breeding and genetic studies. However, despite their ecological and economic importance, their development and application have long been hampered. In this study, we identified 524,170 simple sequence repeat (SSR), 267,636 intron length polymorphism (ILP), and 11,872 potential intron polymorphism (PIP) markers from 16 tree species based on recently available genome sequences. Larger motifs, including hexamers and heptamers, accounted for most of the seven different types of SSR loci. Within these loci, A/T bases comprised a significantly larger proportion of sequence than G/C. SSR and ILP markers exhibited an alternative distribution pattern. Most SSRs were monomorphic markers, and the proportions of polymorphic markers were positively correlated with genome size. By verifying with all 16 tree species, 54 SSR, 418 ILP, and four PIP universal markers were obtained, and their efficiency was examined by PCR. A combination of five SSR and six ILP markers were used for the phylogenetic analysis of 30 willow samples, revealing a positive correlation between genetic diversity and geographic distance. We also found that SSRs can be used as tools for duplication analysis. Our findings provide important foundations for the development of breeding and genetic studies in tree species.

Indexed as

BreedingChromosome MappingGenetic LociGenetic MarkersGenetic VariationGenome, PlantGenome-Wide Association StudyIntronsMicrosatellite RepeatsPhylogenyPolymorphism, GeneticTreesGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID29263331
PMCPMC5738346
OpenAlexW2772734224

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.