ArticleHeredity2020
Adaptive signals of flowering time pathways in wild barley from Israel over 28 generations.
Article in Heredity, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the multifaceted dynamics of flowering time regulation in field crops: Insight and intervention approaches.The plant genome · 2025Review
- Polygenic architecture of flowering time and its relationship with local environments in the grass Brachypodium distachyon.Genetics · 2024Article
- Facilitated Adaptation as A Conservation Tool in the Present Climate Change Context: A Methodological Guide.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Evolution of flowering time in a selfing annual plant: Roles of adaptation and genetic drift.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- How Could the Use of Crop Wild Relatives in Breeding Increase the Adaptation of Crops to Marginal Environments?Frontiers in plant science · 2022Review
- Genomic Adaptive Evolution of Sand Rice (Frontiers in genetics · 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
Flowering time is one of the most critical traits for plants' life cycles, which is influenced by various environment changes, such as global warming. Previous studies have suggested that to guarantee reproductive success, plants have shifted flowering times to adapt to global warming. Although many studies focused on the molecular mechanisms of early flowering, little was supported by the repeated sampling at different time points through the changing climate. To fully dissect the temporal and spatial evolutionary genetics of flowering time, we investigated nucleotide variation in ten flowering time candidate genes and nine reference genes for the same ten wild-barley populations sampled 28 years apart (1980-2008). The overall genetic differentiation was significantly greater in the descendant populations (2008) compared with the ancestral populations (1980); however, local adaptation tests failed to detect any single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)/indel under spatial-diversifying selection at either time point. By contrast, the WFABC (Wright-Fisher ABC-based approach) that detected 54 SNPs/indels was under strong selection during the past 28 generations. Moreover, all these 54 alleles were segregated in the ancestral populations, but fixed in the descendent populations. Among the top ten SNPs/indels, seven were located in genes of FT1 (FLOWERING TIME LOCUS T 1), CO1 (CONSTANS-LIKE PROTEIN 1), and VRN-H2 (VERNALIZATION-H2), which have been documented to be associated with flowering time regulation in barley cultivars. This study might suggest that all ten populations have undergone parallel evolution over the past few decades in response to global warming, and even an overwhelming local adaptation and ecological differentiation.
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.