Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31695583›Full record

ArticleHereditas2019

Mendel's pea crosses: varieties, traits and statistics.

T H Noel Ellis, Julie M I Hofer, Martin T Swain, Peter J van Dijk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Hereditas, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Mendel: From genes to genome.Plant physiology · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Quantitative plant biology-Old and new.Quantitative plant biology · 2021
    Review
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

4 authors.

T H Noel Ellis1School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-6726-9950
Julie M I Hofer2Present address: Department of Metabolic Biology, John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK.
Martin T Swain3IBERS, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK.
Peter J van Dijk4Keygene N.V, 6708 PW Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A controversy arose over Mendel's pea crossing experiments after the statistician R.A. Fisher proposed how these may have been performed and criticised Mendel's interpretation of his data. Here we re-examine Mendel's experiments and investigate Fisher's statistical criticisms of bias. We describe pea varieties available in Mendel's time and show that these could readily provide all the material Mendel needed for his experiments; the characters he chose to follow were clearly described in catalogues at the time. The combination of character states available in these varieties, together with Eichling's report of crosses Mendel performed, suggest that two of his F3 progeny test experiments may have involved the same F2 population, and therefore that these data should not be treated as independent variables in statistical analysis of Mendel's data. A comprehensive re-examination of Mendel's segregation ratios does not support previous suggestions that they differ remarkably from expectation. The χ

Indexed as

Crosses, GeneticModels, GeneticGenetic VariationGenotypePisum sativumPlant BreedingQuantitative Trait, HeritableGregor MendelPea varietiesRA FisherStatistical controversy

Identifiers

PMID31695583
PMCPMC6823958

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.