ArticlePloS one2020
Classification of Takifugu rubripes, T. chinensis and T. pseudommus by genotyping-by-sequencing.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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.
- Differential expression genes in the eye-transcriptomes of the riverine and marine grass puffer (Takifugu niphobles).Scientific reports · 2025Article
- DNA barcoding, identification, and validation of the pufferfish (Order: Tetraodontiformes) in China coastal waters.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Deep machine learning identified fish flesh using multispectral imaging.Current research in food science · 2024Article
- Characterization of the complete mitochondrial genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2022Article
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
Takifugu rubripes is more expensive than other species of the genus because of its high protein content and special flavor. However, it is easily confused with imported T. chinensis and T. pseudommus because they have similar morphological characteristics. We identified single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers of T. rubripes by genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) and evaluated their ability to distinguish among T. rubripes, T. chinensis, and T. pseudommus. In all, 18 polymorphic SNPs were subjected to phylogenetic analyses of the three Takifugu species. Additionally, we subjected a second set of samples to Sanger sequencing to verify that the polymorphic SNPs could be used to evaluate the genetic variation among the three Takifugu species. A phylogenetic tree that included the analyzed sequence of set A, which is referred to as the reference sequence, and a validation sequence of set B with 18 SNPs were produced. Based on this phylogenetic tree and STRUCTURE analyses, T. rubripes, T. chinensis and T. pseudommus have low genetic variation and should be considered the same gene pool. Our findings suggest that further studies are needed to estimate the genetic association of the three Takifugu species.
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.