Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29732262›Full record

ArticleApplications in plant sciences2018

Comparison of taxon-specific versus general locus sets for targeted sequence capture in plant phylogenomics.

John H Chau, Wolfgang A Rahfeldt, Richard G Olmstead

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applications in plant sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Wood and bark structure inAoB PLANTS · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Tackling Rapid Radiations With Targeted Sequencing.Frontiers in plant science · 2019
    Article
  17. Capturing variation inApplications in plant sciences · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

John H ChauDepartment of Biology and Burke Museum University of Washington Box 351800 Seattle Washington 98195 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8913-6451
Wolfgang A RahfeldtDepartment of Biology and Burke Museum University of Washington Box 351800 Seattle Washington 98195 USA.
Richard G OlmsteadDepartment of Biology and Burke Museum University of Washington Box 351800 Seattle Washington 98195 USA.
University of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

premise of the studyTargeted sequence capture can be used to efficiently gather sequence data for large numbers of loci, such as single-copy nuclear loci. Most published studies in plants have used taxon-specific locus sets developed individually for a clade using multiple genomic and transcriptomic resources. General locus sets can also be developed from loci that have been identified as single-copy and have orthologs in large clades of plants.

methodsWe identify and compare a taxon-specific locus set and three general locus sets (conserved ortholog set [COSII], shared single-copy nuclear [APVO SSC] genes, and pentatricopeptide repeat [PPR] genes) for targeted sequence capture in

resultsThe taxon-specific locus set had the most target loci. Assembly success was high for all locus sets in DISCUSSION: General locus sets can be a useful source of sequence capture targets, especially if multiple genomic resources are not available for a taxon.

Indexed as

Buddlejahybrid enrichmentLamialesPPR genesScrophulariaceaesingle‐copy nuclear genes

Identifiers

PMID29732262
PMCPMC5895190
OpenAlexW2794539255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.