Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32461839›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

Application of High Resolution Melt analysis (HRM) for screening haplotype variation in a non-model plant genus: Cyclopia (Honeybush).

Nicholas C Galuszynski, Alastair J Potts

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. 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. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Nicholas C GaluszynskiDepartment of Botany, Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape, South Africa.
Alastair J PottsDepartment of Botany, Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis study has three broad aims: to (a) develop genus-specific primers for High Resolution Melt analysis (HRM) of members of Cyclopia Vent., (b) test the haplotype discrimination of HRM compared to Sanger sequencing, and (c) provide an example of using HRM to detect novel haplotype variation in wild LOCATION: The Cape Floristic Region (CFR), located along the southern Cape of South Africa.

methodsPolymorphic loci were detected through a screening process of sequencing 12 non-coding chloroplast DNA segments across 14 Cyclopia species. Twelve genus-specific primer combinations were designed around variable cpDNA loci, four of which failed to amplify under PCR; the eight remaining were applied to test the specificity, sensitivity and accuracy of HRM. The three top performing HRM Primer combinations were then applied to detect novel haplotypes in wild

resultsWe present a framework for applying HRM to non-model systems. HRM accuracy varied across the PCR products screened using the genus-specific primers developed, ranging between 56 and 100%. The nucleotide variation failing to produce distinct melt curves is discussed. The top three performing regions, having 100% specificity (i.e. different haplotypes were never grouped into the same cluster, no false negatives), were able to detect novel haplotypes in wild

conclusionsAfter screening for regions with high HRM clustering specificity-akin to the screening process associated with most PCR based markers-the technology was found to be a high throughput tool for detecting genetic variation in non-model plants.

Indexed as

Cape Floristic Region (CFR)CyclopiaGeneticsHaplotype screeningHigh Resolution Melt analysis (HRM)HoneybushNon-model organisimsPhylogeography

Identifiers

PMID32461839
PMCPMC7233275

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.