Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35197990›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2021

Comparison of the Chloroplast Genome Sequences of 13 Oil-Tea Camellia Samples and Identification of an Undetermined Oil-Tea Camellia Species From Hainan Province.

Jing Chen, Yujian Guo, Xinwen Hu, Kaibing Zhou

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The complete chloroplast genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Genome Survey and SSR Analysis ofGenetics research · 2022
    Article
  17. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jing ChenEngineering Research Center for Breeding of New Varieties of Tropical Crops, Ministry of Education, Haikou, China.
Yujian GuoEngineering Research Center for Breeding of New Varieties of Tropical Crops, Ministry of Education, Haikou, China.
Xinwen HuEngineering Research Center for Breeding of New Varieties of Tropical Crops, Ministry of Education, Haikou, China.
Kaibing ZhouEngineering Research Center for Breeding of New Varieties of Tropical Crops, Ministry of Education, Haikou, China.
Hainan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The comparison of chloroplast genome (cpDNA) sequences among different plant species is an important source of plant molecular phylogenetic data. In this paper, the cpDNA sequences of 13 different oil-tea camellia samples were compared to identify an undetermined oil-tea camellia species from Hainan Province. The cpDNA of the samples was sequenced and resequenced, and divergence hotspots and simple sequence repeat (SSR) variations were analyzed. Bayesian inference (BI) and maximum-likelihood (ML) phylogenetic trees were constructed based on the full cpDNA sequences. The cpDNA sequences were 156512∼157089 bp in length and had the circular tetrad structure typical of angiosperms. The inverted repeats (IRs) of different species included varying contractions and expansions. The cpDNA sequences of the samples of the undetermined species of oil-tea camellia from Hainan Province and

Indexed as

cpDNAdivergence hotspotsoil-tea camelliaphylogenetic treeSSRs

Identifiers

PMID35197990
PMCPMC8860168
OpenAlexW4210843151

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.