ArticlePlant methods2022
High-throughput estimation of allele frequencies using combined pooled-population sequencing and haplotype-based data processing.
Article in Plant methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of a new QTL associated to reduced quinolizidine alkaloid content in white lupin (Lupinus albus, L.) and development of ultra-low alkaloid recombinants by stacking with the pauper allele.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- Expression interplay of genes coding for calcium-binding proteins and transcription factors during the osmotic phase provides insights on salt stress response mechanisms in bread wheat.Plant molecular biology · 2024Article
- Estimating microhaplotype allele frequencies from low-coverage or pooled sequencing data.BMC bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Best Practices in Microbial Experimental Evolution: Using Reporters and Long-Read Sequencing to Identify Copy Number Variation in Experimental Evolution.Journal of molecular evolution · 2023Review
- Genome-wide family prediction unveils molecular mechanisms underlying the regulation of agronomic traits inFrontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Accurate recombination estimation from pooled genotyping and sequencing: a case study on barley.BMC genomics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn addition to heterogeneity and artificial selection, natural selection is one of the forces used to combat climate change and improve agrobiodiversity in evolutionary plant breeding. Accurate identification of the specific genomic effects of natural selection will likely accelerate transfer between populations. Thus, insights into changes in allele frequency, adequate population size, gene flow and drift are essential. However, observing such effects often involves a trade-off between costs and resolution when a large sample of genotypes for many loci is analysed. Pool genotyping approaches achieve high resolution and precision in estimating allele frequency when sequence coverage is high. Nevertheless, high-coverage pool sequencing of large genomes is expensive.
resultsThree pool samples (n = 300, 300, 288) from a barley backcross population were generated to assess the population's allele frequency. The tested population (BC
conclusionsThe proposed strategy identified the allele frequency of populations with high accuracy at low cost. This is particularly relevant to evolutionary plant breeding of crops with very large genomes, such as barley. Whole-genome low coverage re-sequencing at 0.03 × coverage per genotype accurately estimated the allele frequency when a loci-based haplotyping approach was applied. The implementation of annotated haplotypes capitalises on the biological background and statistical robustness.
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.