ArticleScientific reports2021
Genotypic identification of Panicum spp. in New South Wales, Australia using DNA barcoding.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- DNA-Barcoding for Cultivar Identification and Intraspecific Diversity Analysis of Agricultural Crops.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Australia has over 30 Panicum spp. (panic grass) including several non-native species that cause crop and pasture loss and hepatogenous photosensitisation in livestock. It is critical to correctly identify them at the species level to facilitate the development of appropriate management strategies for efficacious control of Panicum grasses in crops, fallows and pastures. Currently, identification of Panicum spp. relies on morphological examination of the reproductive structures, but this approach is only useful for flowering specimens and requires significant taxonomic expertise. To overcome this limitation, we used multi-locus DNA barcoding for the identification of ten selected Panicum spp. found in Australia. With the exception of P. buncei, other native Australian Panicum were genetically separated at the species level and distinguished from non-native species. One nuclear (ITS) and two chloroplast regions (matK and trnL intron-trnF) were identified with varying facility for DNA barcode separation of the Panicum species. Concatenation of sequences from ITS, matK and trnL intron-trnF regions provided clear separation of eight regionally collected species, with a maximum intraspecific distance of 0.22% and minimum interspecific distance of 0.33%. Two of three non-native Panicum species exhibited a smaller genome size compared to native species evaluated, and we speculate that this may be associated with biological advantages impacting invasion of non-native Panicum species in novel locations. We conclude that multi-locus DNA barcoding, in combination with traditional taxonomic identification, provides an accurate and cost-effective adjunctive tool for further distinguishing Panicum spp. at the species level.
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.