Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31568509›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

A high-density exome capture genotype-by-sequencing panel for forestry breeding in Pinus radiata.

Emily Telfer, Natalie Graham, Lucy Macdonald, Yongjun Li, Jaroslav Klápště, Marcio Resende, Leandro Gomide Neves, Heidi Dungey, Phillip Wilcox

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The long road to bloom in conifers.Forestry research · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Toward genomic selection inApplications in plant sciences · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Emily TelferNew Zealand Forest Research Institute LTD. trading as Scion, Rotorua, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-5269-6589
Natalie GrahamNew Zealand Forest Research Institute LTD. trading as Scion, Rotorua, New Zealand.
Lucy MacdonaldNew Zealand Forest Research Institute LTD. trading as Scion, Rotorua, New Zealand.
Yongjun LiNew Zealand Forest Research Institute LTD. trading as Scion, Rotorua, New Zealand.
Jaroslav KlápštěNew Zealand Forest Research Institute LTD. trading as Scion, Rotorua, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-5504-3735
Marcio ResendeHorticultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.
Leandro Gomide NevesRAPiD Genomics LLC, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.
Heidi DungeyNew Zealand Forest Research Institute LTD. trading as Scion, Rotorua, New Zealand.
Phillip WilcoxDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Development of genome-wide resources for application in genomic selection or genome-wide association studies, in the absence of full reference genomes, present a challenge to the forestry industry, where longer breeding cycles could benefit from the accelerated selection possible through marker-based breeding value predictions. In particular, large conifer megagenomes require a strategy to reduce complexity, whilst ensuring genome-wide coverage is achieved. Using a transcriptome-based reference template, we have successfully developed a high density exome capture genotype-by-sequencing panel for radiata pine (Pinus radiata D.Don), capable of capturing in excess of 80,000 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers with a minor allele frequency above 0.03 in the population tested. This represents approximately 29,000 gene models from a core set of 48,914 probes. A set of 704 SNP markers capable of pedigree reconstruction and differentiating individual genotypes were tested within two full-sib mapping populations. While as few as 70 markers could reconstruct parentage in almost all cases, the impact of missing genotypes was noticeable in several offspring. Therefore, 60 sets of 110 randomly selected SNP markers were compared for both parentage reconstruction and clone differentiation. The performance in parentage reconstruction showed little variation over 60 iterations. However, there was notable variation in discriminatory power between closely related individuals, indicating a higher density SNP marker panel may be required to elucidate hidden relationships in complex pedigrees.

Indexed as

ExomeForestryGenome, PlantGenotypeGene FrequencyGenomicsPinusPolymorphism, Single NucleotideTranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID31568509
PMCPMC6768539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.