Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34100945›Full record

SynthesisGenetics2021

Meta-analysis identifies pleiotropic loci controlling phenotypic trade-offs in sorghum.

Ravi V Mural, Marcin Grzybowski, Chenyong Miao, Alyssa Damke, Sirjan Sapkota, Richard E Boyles, Maria G Salas Fernandez, Patrick S Schnable, Brandi Sigmon, Stephen Kresovich and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Genes and pathways determining flowering time variation in temperate-adapted sorghum.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ravi V MuralCenter for Plant Science Innovation and Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5489-9918
Marcin GrzybowskiCenter for Plant Science Innovation and Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6303-5433
Chenyong MiaoCenter for Plant Science Innovation and Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0904-3707
Alyssa DamkeDepartment of Plant Pathology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.
Sirjan SapkotaAdvanced Plant Technology Program, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA.
Richard E BoylesDepartment of Plant and Environment Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1366-7659
Maria G Salas FernandezDepartment of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010, USA.
Patrick S SchnableDepartment of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50010, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9169-5204
Brandi SigmonDepartment of Plant Pathology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.
Stephen KresovichDepartment of Plant and Environment Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA.
James C SchnableCenter for Plant Science Innovation and Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6739-5527
University of Nebraska–Lincoln · USClemson University · USIowa State University · USCornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community association populations are composed of phenotypically and genetically diverse accessions. Once these populations are genotyped, the resulting marker data can be reused by different groups investigating the genetic basis of different traits. Because the same genotypes are observed and scored for a wide range of traits in different environments, these populations represent a unique resource to investigate pleiotropy. Here, we assembled a set of 234 separate trait datasets for the Sorghum Association Panel, a group of 406 sorghum genotypes widely employed by the sorghum genetics community. Comparison of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) conducted with two independently generated marker sets for this population demonstrate that existing genetic marker sets do not saturate the genome and likely capture only 35-43% of potentially detectable loci controlling variation for traits scored in this population. While limited evidence for pleiotropy was apparent in cross-GWAS comparisons, a multivariate adaptive shrinkage approach recovered both known pleiotropic effects of existing loci and new pleiotropic effects, particularly significant impacts of known dwarfing genes on root architecture. In addition, we identified new loci with pleiotropic effects consistent with known trade-offs in sorghum development. These results demonstrate the potential for mining existing trait datasets from widely used community association populations to enable new discoveries from existing trait datasets as new, denser genetic marker datasets are generated for existing community association populations.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenetic PleiotropyQuantitative Trait LociQuantitative Trait, HeritableSorghumcommunity genetic resourcesGWASpleiotropyquantitative geneticssorghum

Identifiers

PMID34100945
PMCPMC9335936
OpenAlexW3168702067

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.