Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30115097›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2018

Chromosome-scale comparative sequence analysis unravels molecular mechanisms of genome dynamics between two wheat cultivars.

Anupriya Kaur Thind, Thomas Wicker, Thomas Müller, Patrick M Ackermann, Burkhard Steuernagel, Brande B H Wulff, Manuel Spannagl, Sven O Twardziok, Marius Felder, Thomas Lux and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
15.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Resistance of QYm.nau-2D to wheat yellow mosaic virus was derived from an alien introgression into common wheat.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Anupriya Kaur ThindDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Zurich, Zollikerstrasse 107, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-5426-0500
Thomas WickerDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Zurich, Zollikerstrasse 107, Zurich, Switzerland.
Thomas MüllerDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Zurich, Zollikerstrasse 107, Zurich, Switzerland.
Patrick M AckermannDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Zurich, Zollikerstrasse 107, Zurich, Switzerland.
Burkhard SteuernagelJohn Innes Centre, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, UK.
Brande B H WulffJohn Innes Centre, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, UK.
Manuel SpannaglHelmholtz Zentrum Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sven O TwardziokHelmholtz Zentrum Munich, Munich, Germany.
Marius FelderHelmholtz Zentrum Munich, Munich, Germany.
Thomas LuxHelmholtz Zentrum Munich, Munich, Germany.
Klaus F X MayerHelmholtz Zentrum Munich, Munich, Germany.
International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium
Beat KellerDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Zurich, Zollikerstrasse 107, Zurich, Switzerland.
Simon G KrattingerDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Zurich, Zollikerstrasse 107, Zurich, Switzerland. simon.krattinger@kaust.edu.sa.
University of Zurich · CHHelmholtz Zentrum München · DEJohn Innes Centre · GBKing Saud University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent improvements in DNA sequencing and genome scaffolding have paved the way to generate high-quality de novo assemblies of pseudomolecules representing complete chromosomes of wheat and its wild relatives. These assemblies form the basis to compare the dynamics of wheat genomes on a megabase scale.

resultsHere, we provide a comparative sequence analysis of the 700-megabase chromosome 2D between two bread wheat genotypes-the old landrace Chinese Spring and the elite Swiss spring wheat line 'CH Campala Lr22a'. Both chromosomes were assembled into megabase-sized scaffolds. There is a high degree of sequence conservation between the two chromosomes. Analysis of large structural variations reveals four large indels of more than 100 kb. Based on the molecular signatures at the breakpoints, unequal crossing over and double-strand break repair were identified as the molecular mechanisms that caused these indels. Three of the large indels affect copy number of NLRs, a gene family involved in plant immunity. Analysis of SNP density reveals four haploblocks of 4, 8, 9 and 48 Mb with a 35-fold increased SNP density compared to the rest of the chromosome. Gene content across the two chromosomes was highly conserved. Ninety-nine percent of the genic sequences were present in both genotypes and the fraction of unique genes ranged from 0.4 to 0.7%.

conclusionsThis comparative analysis of two high-quality chromosome assemblies enabled a comprehensive assessment of large structural variations and gene content. The insight obtained from this analysis will form the basis of future wheat pan-genome studies.

Indexed as

Genome, PlantSequence Analysis, DNABase PairingChromosomes, PlantCrossing Over, GeneticDNA Breaks, Double-StrandedDNA Copy Number VariationsDNA RepairGene FlowGenes, PlantHaplotypesMultigene FamilyPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSequence DeletionSyntenyTriticumGenome diversityHigh-quality assemblyStructural variationWheat

Identifiers

PMID30115097
PMCPMC6097286
OpenAlexW2950196479

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.