ArticleGenes & genomics2018
Comparison of leaf transcriptomes of cassava "Xinxuan 048" diploid and autotetraploid plants.
Article in Genes & genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcriptome and metabolome profiling uncover phenotypic divergence of gigantic and dwarf mutant genotypes in induced Pakchoi autotetraploids.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Multiomics analysis of cassava with different ploidy levels in response toTetranychus cinnabarinus.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- Comparative phenotypic and transcriptomic analyses reveal the potential molecular basis of forming bigger leaf blade in autotetraploid castor bean.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- Expression pattern of resynthesized allotetraploid Capsella is determined by hybridization, not whole-genome duplication.The New phytologist · 2023Article
- Induction of Synthetic Polyploids and Assessment of Genomic Stability inFrontiers in plant science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polyploidy breeding of cassava has been used to improve cassava traits over the past years. We previously reported in vitro induction of tetraploids in the cassava variety "Xinxuan 048" using colchicine. Significant differences in morphology and anatomy were found between the diploid and tetraploid plants. However, very little is known about the transcriptome difference between them. In this study, morphological and physiological characteristics including leaf thickness, plant height, internode length, chlorophyll content, and photosynthetic capacity were measured. Further, we investigated and validated the difference in gene expression patterns between cassava "Xinxuan 048" tetraploid genotype and its diploid plants using RNA sequencing (RNAseq) and quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Significant differences in morphology and physiology were observed during tetraploidization. A comparison revealed that tetraploidy induced very limited changes in the leaf transcriptomes of cassava "Xinxuan 048" diploid and autotetraploid plants. However, the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between 2× and 4× plants, especially those upregulated in 4× plants, were strongly associated with hormonal and stress responses. Large changes in morphology and physiology between the diploid cassava "Xinxuan 048" and its autotetraploid were not associated with large changes in their leaf transcriptomes. Moreover, the differently expressed genes related to the regulation of gibberellin and brassinosteroids potentially explained why the plant height and internode length of 4× plants became shorter. Collectively, our results suggest that 4× cassava is potentially valuable for breeding strains with improved stress resistance.
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.