ArticleScientific reports2020
Interspecific grafting between Gossypium hirsutum, G. barbadense and G. herbaceum lines.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genome Editing by Grafting.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- N6-methyladenosine RNA modification regulates photoperiod sensitivity in cotton.Plant physiology · 2024Article
- Grafting based DNA methylation alteration of snoRNAs in upland cotton (Physiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2024Article
- Tissue and/or developmental stage specific methylation of nrDNA in Capsicum annuum.Journal of plant research · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Seedling grafting could provide additional crop improvement strategies for cotton. However, there existed limited studies on interspecific grafting and approaches. Four different grafting approaches were developed and compared between lines representing three of the four cultivated cotton species G. hirsutum, G. barbadense and G. herbaceum. Grafting approaches of this study focused on the cotyledon node and cotyledon leaves retained on scions, rootstocks, without cotyledon node and cotyledon leaves on scions and rootstocks or halved cotyledon node and single cotyledon leaf on scions and rootstocks. Evaluations of the grafting approaches were made by comparing survival and growth rate during the second and fifth weeks after transplantation, respectively. The formation of any lateral shoots at the grafted sites were studied in two of four grafting approaches in the first and the second year during flowering stage. DNA alterations due to grafting were investigated using microsatellite markers. There were no statistically significant differences between grafts and their control in survival rate and locus specific DNA alteration. Growth rate and lateral shoot formation, on the other hand, were different among grafting types and grafts. We concluded that grafting without cotyledon node and cotyledon leaves on rootstocks, and with cotyledon node but without cotyledon leaves on scions were easy to perform and suitable for interspecific cotton grafting. Results suggested that grafting seedlings and allowing time to heal graft wounds prior to spring transplanting or double cropping is suitable for wheat-cotton intercropping to prevent late or early chilling damage associated with seed sowing or conventional transplanting of susceptible seedlings. Furthermore, the rapid and consistent wound healing in seedling grafts along with lateral shoot formation occurring in two of four grafting approaches make them a suitable approach to investigate possible genetic and epigenetic movement between scions and rootstocks, especially across 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.