ArticleApplications in plant sciences2019
Expanding and testing fluorescent amplified fragment length polymorphisms for identifying roots of boreal forest plant species.
Article in Applications in plant sciences, 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.
- Botanical microbiomes on the cheap: Inexpensive molecular fingerprinting methods to study plant-associated communities of bacteria and fungi.Applications in plant sciences · 2020Review
- Expanding and testing fluorescent amplified fragment length polymorphisms for identifying roots of boreal forest plant species.Applications in plant sciences · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
premise of the studyIdentifying roots to species is challenging, but is a common problem in ecology. Fluorescent amplified fragment length polymorphisms (FAFLPs) can distinguish species within a mixed sample, are high throughput, and are inexpensive. To broaden the use of this tool across ecosystems, unique size profiles must be established for species, and its limits identified.
methodsFragments of three noncoding cpDNA regions were used to create size profiles for 193 species common to the western Canadian boreal forest. We compared detection success among congeners using FAFLPs and Sanger sequencing of the
resultsOf the 193 species, 54% had unique size profiles. This value decreased when fewer cpDNA regions were used. In simulated communities, ambiguous species identifications were positively related to the species richness of the community. In mock communities, some species evaded detection owing to poor extraction or amplification. Sequencing did not increase detection success compared to FAFLPs for a subset of 24 species across nine genera. DISCUSSION: We recommend FAFLPs are best suited to confirm rather than discover species occurring belowground.
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.