Article3 Biotech2018
Comparison of relative efficiency of genomic SSR and EST-SSR markers in estimating genetic diversity in sugarcane.
Article in 3 Biotech, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 96 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the genetic potential of Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera L. Dunal) germplasm through SCoT and EST-SSR molecular markers.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Transcriptome-Wide Identification and Development of SSR Markers for Genetic Diversity Studies in MedicinalInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Genetic-Geographic-Chemical Framework ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Characterization of phenotypic and genetic diversity in sodium azide-induced mutant populations in oat (Avena sativa).BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- Population Genetics ofGenes · 2025Article
- De Novo Transcriptome Assembly ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Assessing Genetic Diversity in Endangered PlantInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Comparing genetic differentiation and variation using ISSR and SCoT among Juniper plant markers in Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- Tolerance evaluation and genetic relationship analysis among some economically important chestnut cultivars in Türkiye using drought-associated SSR and EST-SSR markers.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Simple Sequence Repeat Fingerprint Identification of Essential-Oil-BearingBiomolecules · 2023Article
- A Set of Highly Polymorphic Microsatellite Markers for Genetic Diversity Studies in the GenusPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Evaluation of a Sugarcane (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- De novo assembly of Iron-Heart Cunninghamia lanceolata transcriptome and EST-SSR marker development for genetic diversity analysis.PloS one · 2023Article
- Molecular Characterization ofGenes · 2022Article
- An overview of remote monitoring methods in biodiversity conservation.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Review
- Gene flow between wild trees and cultivated varieties shapes the genetic structure of sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) populations.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Analysis of the genetic diversity and population structure of Monochasma savatieri Franch. ex Maxim using novel EST-SSR markers.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- The complete chloroplast genome of critically endangered Chimonobambusa hirtinoda (Poaceae: Chimonobambusa) and phylogenetic analysis.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Identification of potential MTAs and candidate genes for juice quality- and yield-related traits in Saccharum clones: a genome-wide association and comparative genomic study.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Twenty-five primer pairs developed from genomic simple sequence repeats (SSR) were compared with 25 expressed sequence tags (EST) SSRs to evaluate the efficiency of these two sets of primers using 59 sugarcane genetic stocks. The mean polymorphism information content (PIC) of genomic SSR was higher (0.72) compared to the PIC value recorded by EST-SSR marker (0.62). The relatively low level of polymorphism in EST-SSR markers may be due to the location of these markers in more conserved and expressed sequences compared to genomic sequences which are spread throughout the genome. Dendrogram based on the genomic SSR and EST-SSR marker data showed differences in grouping of genotypes. A total of 59 sugarcane accessions were grouped into 6 and 4 clusters using genomic SSR and EST-SSR, respectively. The highly efficient genomic SSR could subcluster the genotypes of some of the clusters formed by EST-SSR markers. The difference in dendrogram observed was probably due to the variation in number of markers produced by genomic SSR and EST-SSR and different portion of genome amplified by both the markers. The combined dendrogram (genomic SSR and EST-SSR) more clearly showed the genetic relationship among the sugarcane genotypes by forming four clusters. The mean genetic similarity (GS) value obtained using EST-SSR among 59 sugarcane accessions was 0.70, whereas the mean GS obtained using genomic SSR was 0.63. Although relatively lower level of polymorphism was displayed by the EST-SSR markers, genetic diversity shown by the EST-SSR was found to be promising as they were functional marker. High level of PIC and low genetic similarity values of genomic SSR may be more useful in DNA fingerprinting, selection of true hybrids, identification of variety specific markers and genetic diversity analysis. Identification of diverse parents based on cluster analysis can be effectively done with EST-SSR as the genetic similarity estimates are based on functional attributes related to morphological/agronomical traits.
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.