Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34845350›Full record

ArticleNature plants2021

Representation and participation across 20 years of plant genome sequencing.

Rose A Marks, Scott Hotaling, Paul B Frandsen, Robert VanBuren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature plants, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 156 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
156citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

156 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

96 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rose A MarksDepartment of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. marksr49@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7102-5959
Scott HotalingSchool of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5965-0986
Paul B FrandsenDepartment of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4801-7579
Robert VanBurenDepartment of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2133-2760

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The field of plant genome sequencing has grown rapidly in the past 20 years, leading to increases in the quantity and quality of publicly available genomic resources. The growing wealth of genomic data from an increasingly diverse set of taxa provides unprecedented potential to better understand the genome biology and evolution of land plants. Here we provide a contemporary view of land plant genomics, including analyses on assembly quality, taxonomic distribution of sequenced species and national participation. We show that assembly quality has increased dramatically in recent years, that substantial taxonomic gaps exist and that the field has been dominated by affluent nations in the Global North and China, despite a wide geographic distribution of study species. We identify numerous disconnects between the native range of focal species and the national affiliation of the researchers studying them, which we argue are rooted in colonialism-both past and present. Luckily, falling sequencing costs, widening availability of analytical tools and an increasingly connected scientific community provide key opportunities to improve existing assemblies, fill sampling gaps and empower a more global plant genomics community.

Indexed as

Genome, PlantGenomicsPlantsChromosome MappingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingInternationality

Identifiers

PMID34845350
PMCPMC8677620

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.