ArticlePloS one2019
A discriminatory test for the wheat B and G genomes reveals misclassified accessions of Triticum timopheevii and Triticum turgidum.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- GBS-based identification ofFrontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Exploring genetic diversity of wild and related tetraploid wheat species Triticum turgidum and Triticum timopheevii.Journal of advanced research · 2023Article
- Multiregional origins of the domesticated tetraploid wheats.PloS one · 2020Article
- Genotyping-by-Sequencing Derived Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms Provide the First Well-Resolved Phylogeny for the GenusFrontiers 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The tetraploid wheat species Triticum turgidum and Triticum timopheevii are morphologically similar, and misidentification of material collected from the wild is possible. We compared published sequences for the Ppd-A1, Ppd-B1 and Ppd-G1 genes from multiple accessions of T. turgidum and T. timopheevii and devised a set of four polymerase chain reactions (PCRs), two specific for Ppd-B1 and two for Ppd-G1. We used these PCRs with 51 accessions of T. timopheevii and 20 of T. turgidum. Sixty of these accessions gave PCR products consistent with their taxon identifications, but the other eleven accessions gave anomalous results: ten accessions that were classified as T. turgidum were identified as T. timopheevii by the PCRs, and one T. timopheevii accession was typed as T. turgidum. We believe that these anomalies are not due to errors in the PCR tests because the results agree with a more comprehensive analysis of genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms, which similarly suggest that these eleven accessions have been misclassified. Our results therefore show that the accepted morphological tests for discrimination between T. turgidum and T. timopheevii might not be entirely robust, but that species identification can be made cheaply and quickly by PCRs directed at the Ppd-1 gene.
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.