Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35139814›Full record

ArticleBMC plant biology2022

Defining the mutation sites in chickpea nodulation mutants PM233 and PM405.

Daniel C Frailey, Qian Zhang, David J Wood, Thomas M Davis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC plant biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel C FraileyDepartment of Agriculture, Nutrition, and Food Systems, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 03824, USA. dcfrail@gmail.com.
Qian ZhangDepartment of Agriculture, Nutrition, and Food Systems, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 03824, USA.
David J WoodDepartment of Agriculture, Nutrition, and Food Systems, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 03824, USA.
Thomas M DavisDepartment of Agriculture, Nutrition, and Food Systems, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 03824, USA.
University of New Hampshire · USVirginia Tech · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLike most legumes, chickpeas form specialized organs called root nodules. These nodules allow for a symbiotic relationship with rhizobium bacteria. The rhizobia provide fixed atmospheric nitrogen to the plant in a usable form. It is of both basic and practical interest to understand the host plant genetics of legume root nodulation. Chickpea lines PM233 and PM405, which harbor the mutationally identified nodulation genes rn1 and rn4, respectively, both display nodulation-deficient phenotypes. Previous investigators identified the rn1 mutation with the chickpea homolog of Medicago truncatula nodulation gene NSP2, but were unable to define the mutant rn1 allele. We used Illumina and Nanopore sequencing reads to attempt to identify and characterize candidate mutation sites responsible for the PM233 and PM405 phenotypes.

resultsWe aligned Illumina reads to the available desi chickpea reference genome, and did a de novo contig assembly of Nanopore reads. In mutant PM233, the Nanopore contigs allowed us to identify the breakpoints of a ~ 35 kb deleted region containing the CaNSP2 gene, the Medicago truncatula homolog of which is involved in nodulation. In mutant PM405, we performed variant calling in read alignments and identified 10 candidate mutations. Genotyping of a segregating progeny population narrowed that pool down to a single candidate gene which displayed homology to M. truncatula nodulation gene NIN.

conclusionsWe have characterized the nodulation mutation sites in chickpea mutants PM233 and PM405. In mutant PM233, the rn1 mutation was shown to be due to deletion of the entire CaNSP2 nodulation gene, while in mutant PM405 the rn4 mutation was due to a single base deletion resulting in a frameshift mutation between the predicted RWP-RK and PB1 domains of the NIN nodulation gene. Critical to characterization of the rn1 allele was the generation of Nanopore contigs for mutant PM233 and its wild type parent ICC 640, without which the deletional boundaries could not be defined. Our results suggest that efforts of prior investigators were hampered by genomic misassemblies in the CaNSP2 region of both the desi and kabuli reference genomes.

Indexed as

MutationCicerGenome, PlantHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPhenotypePlant ProteinsPlant Root NodulationPlant ProteinsChickpeaCicerMutantNodulationVariant identification

Identifiers

PMID35139814
PMCPMC8827291
OpenAlexW4210842248

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.