Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34503446›Full record

ArticleBMC plant biology2021

Maximizing genetic representation in seed collections from populations of self and cross-pollinated banana wild relatives.

Simon Kallow, Bart Panis, Dang Toan Vu, Tuong Dang Vu, Janet Paofa, Arne Mertens, Rony Swennen, Steven B Janssens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC plant biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Phylogeography and conservation gaps ofGenetic resources and crop evolution · 2022
    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

8 authors.

Simon KallowDepartment of Biosystems, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Willem de Croylaan 42, 3001, Leuven, Belgium. S.Kallow@Kew.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0869-5797
Bart PanisDepartment of Biosystems, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Willem de Croylaan 42, 3001, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6717-947X
Dang Toan VuPlant Resources Center, Ankhanh, Hoaiduc, Hà Noi, Viet Nam.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3589-6428
Tuong Dang VuPlant Resources Center, Ankhanh, Hoaiduc, Hà Noi, Viet Nam.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7784-6598
Janet PaofaNational Agricultural Research Institute, Laloki, Port Moresby, 121, Papua New Guinea.
Arne MertensDepartment of Biosystems, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Willem de Croylaan 42, 3001, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3272-9464
Rony SwennenDepartment of Biosystems, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Willem de Croylaan 42, 3001, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5258-9043
Steven B JanssensMeise Botanic Garden, Nieuwelaan 38, 1860, Meise, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1246-9474

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConservation of plant genetic resources, including the wild relatives of crops, plays an important and well recognised role in addressing some of the key challenges faced by humanity and the planet including ending hunger and biodiversity loss. However, the genetic diversity and representativeness of ex situ collections, especially that contained in seed collections, is often unknown. This limits meaningful assessments against conservation targets, impairs targeting of future collecting and limits their use. We assessed genetic representation of seed collections compared to source populations for three wild relatives of bananas and plantains. Focal species and sampling regions were M. acuminata subsp. banksii (Papua New Guinea), M. balbisiana (Viet Nam) and M. maclayi s.l. (Bougainville, Papua New Guinea). We sequenced 445 samples using suites of 16-20 existing and newly developed taxon-specific polymorphic microsatellite markers. Samples of each species were from five populations in a region; 15 leaf samples from different individuals and 16 seed samples from one infructescence ('bunch') were analysed for each population.

resultsAllelic richness of seeds compared to populations was 51, 81 and 93% (M. acuminata, M. balbisiana and M. maclayi respectively). Seed samples represented all common alleles in populations but omitted some rarer alleles. The number of collections required to achieve the 70% target of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation was species dependent, relating to mating systems. Musa acuminata populations had low heterozygosity and diversity, indicating self-fertilization; many bunches were needed (> 15) to represent regional alleles to 70%; over 90% of the alleles from a bunch are included in only two seeds. Musa maclayi was characteristically cross-fertilizing; only three bunches were needed to represent regional alleles; within a bunch, 16 seeds represent alleles. Musa balbisiana, considered cross-fertilized, had low genetic diversity; seeds of four bunches are needed to represent regional alleles; only two seeds represent alleles in a bunch.

conclusionsWe demonstrate empirical measurement of representation of genetic material in seeds collections in ex situ conservation towards conservation targets. Species mating systems profoundly affected genetic representation in seed collections and therefore should be a primary consideration to maximize genetic representation. Results are applicable to sampling strategies for other wild species.

Indexed as

Seed BankAllelesCrops, AgriculturalGenetics, PopulationGenetic VariationMusaPapua New GuineaPollinationSeedsVietnamConservation strategyCrop wild relativesGenetic diversitySamplingSeed bank

Identifiers

PMID34503446
PMCPMC8431884

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.