Article3 Biotech2019
Characterization of
Article in 3 Biotech, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data-Mining Techniques: A New Approach to Identifying the Links among Hybrid Strains ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Application of K-Means Clustering Algorithm to Commercial Parameters ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Production of hybrid strains is accomplished by mating monosporic isolates or neohaplonts, obtained either by chemical dedikaryotization or by production of protoplast. However, differences in growth rate among recovered neohaplonts have been reported. The presence of phenotypic and genetic changes among the neohaplonts recovered either by chemical dedikaryotization or by production of protoplast, was evaluated by measuring growth and morphology, and by molecular characterization using six ISSR markers to identify polymorphisms. Neohaplonts recovered by both methods presented variation in growth rate depending on their compatibility type and recovery method. Using ISSR markers, 59.2% polymorphism was established. Neohaplonts recovered by both monokaryotization procedures presented differences in growth rate and polymorphism.
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.