ArticleBMC plant biology2018
New tools to screen wild peanut species for aflatoxin accumulation and genetic fingerprinting.
Article in BMC plant biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construction of an introgression line population for cultivated peanut (Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Identification and Characterization of Peanut Seed Coat Secondary Metabolites InhibitingJournal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2024Article
- Genetic diversity, disease resistance, and environmental adaptation of Arachis duranensis L.: New insights from landscape genomics.PloS one · 2024Article
- Pre-harvest host-resistance toHeliyon · 2023Article
- Genotyping tools and resources to assess peanut germplasm: smut-resistant landraces as a case study.PeerJ · 2021Article
- Breeding Crops for Enhanced Food Safety.Frontiers in plant science · 2020Review
- Advances in Crop Improvement and Delivery Research for Nutritional Quality and Health Benefits of Groundnut (Frontiers in plant science · 2020Review
- Introgression of peanut smut resistance from landraces to elite peanut cultivars (Arachis hypogaea L.).PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAflatoxin contamination in peanut seeds is still a serious problem for the industry and human health. No stable aflatoxin resistant cultivars have yet been produced, and given the narrow genetic background of cultivated peanuts, wild species became an important source of genetic diversity. Wild peanut seeds, however, are not abundant, thus, an effective method of screening for aflatoxin accumulation using minimal seeds is highly desirable. In addition, keeping record of genetic fingerprinting of each accession would be very useful for breeding programs and for the identification of accessions within germplasm collections.
resultsIn this study, we report a method of screening for aflatoxin accumulation that is applicable to the small-size seeds of wild peanuts, increases the reliability by testing seed viability, and records the genetic fingerprinting of the samples. Aflatoxin levels observed among 20 wild peanut species varied from zero to 19000 ng.g
conclusionsThis study provides a reliable method to screen wild species of peanut for aflatoxin resistance using minimal seeds. In addition we report 288 new SSRs for peanut, and a cost-effective combination of markers sufficient to discriminate all 20 species tested. These tools can be used for the systematic search of aflatoxin resistant germplasm keeping record of the genetic fingerprinting of the accessions tested for breeding purpose.
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.