Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29732266›Full record

ArticleApplications in plant sciences2018

Targeting legume loci: A comparison of three methods for target enrichment bait design in Leguminosae phylogenomics.

Mohammad Vatanparast, Adrian Powell, Jeff J Doyle, Ashley N Egan

Abstract 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 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. An Overview of the Genetics and Genomics of theFrontiers in plant science · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Mohammad VatanparastDepartment of Botany National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution P.O. Box 37012, MRC 166 Washington DC 20560 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9644-0566
Adrian PowellSection of Plant Breeding and Genetics School of Integrated Plant Sciences Cornell University 512 Mann Library Ithaca New York 14853 USA.
Jeff J DoyleSection of Plant Breeding and Genetics School of Integrated Plant Sciences Cornell University 512 Mann Library Ithaca New York 14853 USA.
Ashley N EganDepartment of Botany National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution P.O. Box 37012, MRC 166 Washington DC 20560 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7803-4444

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

premise of the studyThe development of pipelines for locus discovery has spurred the use of target enrichment for plant phylogenomics. However, few studies have compared pipelines from locus discovery and bait design, through validation, to tree inference. We compared three methods within Leguminosae (Fabaceae) and present a workflow for future efforts.

methodsUsing 30 transcriptomes, we compared Hyb-Seq, MarkerMiner, and the Yang and Smith (Y&S) pipelines for locus discovery, validated 7501 baits targeting 507 loci across 25 genera via Illumina sequencing, and inferred gene and species trees via concatenation- and coalescent-based methods.

resultsHyb-Seq discovered loci with the longest mean length. MarkerMiner discovered the most conserved loci with the least flagged as paralogous. Y&S offered the most parsimony-informative sites and putative orthologs. Target recovery averaged 93% across taxa. We optimized our targeted locus set based on a workflow designed to minimize paralog/ortholog conflation and thus present 423 loci for legume phylogenomics.

conclusionsMethods differed across criteria important for phylogenetic marker development. We recommend Hyb-Seq as a method that may be useful for most phylogenomic projects. Our targeted locus set is a resource for future, community-driven efforts to reconstruct the legume tree of life.

Indexed as

FabaceaeHyb‐Seqphylogenomicssequence capturetarget enrichmenttranscriptomes

Identifiers

PMID29732266
PMCPMC5895186

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.