ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2019
Molecular differentiation of the Murraya paniculata Complex (Rutaceae: Aurantioideae: Aurantieae).
Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 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.
- Transcriptomic analysis of early stages of 'Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Pangenome analysis provides insight into the evolution of the orange subfamily and a key gene for citric acid accumulation in citrus fruits.Nature genetics · 2023Article
- Review
- Early Population Dynamics of "Frontiers in microbiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOrange jasmine has a complex nomenclatural history and is now known as Murraya paniculata (L.) Jack. Our interest in this common ornamental stemmed from the need to resolve its identity and the identities of closely related taxa as hosts of the pathogen 'Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus' and its vector Diaphorina citri. Understanding these microbe-vector-plant relationships has been hampered by taxonomic confusion surrounding Murraya at both the generic and specific levels.
resultsTo resolve the taxonomic uncertainty, six regions of the maternally-inherited chloroplastal genome and part of the nuclear-encoded ITS region were amplified from 85 accessions of Murraya and Merrillia using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Clustering used maximum parsimony (MP), maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian inference (BI). Chronograms were produced for molecular dating, and to test the monophyly of Murraya rigorously, using selected accessions of Murraya and 26 accessions of the Rutaceae and Simarubaceae. Sequence data from the ITS and chloroplastal regions suggest that Murraya paniculata (sensu (Swingle WT and Reece CR, The Citrus Industry, p. 190-430, 1967)) can be separated into four distinct but morphologically somewhat cryptic taxa: Murraya paniculata (sensu (Mabberley DJ, Taxon 65:366-371, 2016)), M. elongata, M. sumatrana and M. lucida. In addition, Murraya omphalocarpa was identified as a putative hybrid of M. paniculata and M. lucida with two geographically isolated nothovarieties representing reciprocal crosses. Murraya is monophyletic, and molecular dating suggests that it diverged from Merrillia during the Miocene (23-5 Ma) with this Murraya group speciating and dispersing during the Middle Miocene onwards.
conclusionsThe accessions from Asia and Australasia used in this study grouped into biogeographical regions that match herbarium specimen records for the taxa that suggest natural allopatric distributions with limited overlap and hybridity. Murraya paniculata has been distributed around the world as an ornamental plant. The division of the Murraya paniculata complex into four species with a rare hybrid also confirms morphological studies.
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.