ArticleHereditas2019
Genetic diversity and structure of
Article in Hereditas, 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, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive Analysis of Genetic and Morphological Diversity inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Sweet pepper yield modeling via deep learning and selection of superior genotypes using GBLUP and MGIDI.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Genome-Wide Identification and Characterization of SNPs and InDels ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Conservation of floral, fruit and chromosomal diversity: a review on diploid and polyploid Capsicum annuum complex in India.Molecular biology reports · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentification of high resolving DNA-based markers is of paramount importance to unlock the potential of genetic diversity and selection of unique accessions of
resultsDendrograms from SCoT and DAMD categorized the accessions into five and three genetic groups, respectively, while the principal component analysis identified five genetic clusters, each from the markers. The average values of allele, gene diversity and polymorphic information content detected with SCoT and DAMD demonstrate that the two markers were effective and efficient, especially, SCoT in genetic diversity study of the accessions of pepper. Number of polymorphic loci (NPL) and percentage polymorphic loci (PPL) from SCoT (NPL = 64, PPL = 80.00-95.73%) and DAMD (NPL = 56, PPL = 53.33-86.67%) were high, but higher in SCoT markers. Other effective genetic parameters (effective number of alleles, Nei's genetic diversity and Shannon's information indices) identified with the two marker systems elucidated the allelic richness, rich genetic diversity within the populations and informative nature of the markers, especially SCoT. The intraspecific genetic diversity, interspecific genetic diversity, and coefficient of differentiation obtained with SCoT and DAMD further exposed the genetic structure with more genetic divergence within than among the populations of the accessions. Estimate of gene flow from the SCoT markers was 3.8375 and 0.6.2042 for the DAMD markers. The estimate of gene flow values from the markers indicated extensiveness with SCoT (Nm = 3.8375) and extremely extensive with DAMD (Nm = 6.2042) among the populations.
conclusionThis study shows that SCoT markers may be more useful and informative than DAMD in measuring genetic diversity and differentiation of the accessions of the genus
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.