ReviewComparative cytogenetics2022
A critical review on cytogenetics of Cucurbitaceae with updates on Indian taxa.
Review in Comparative cytogenetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The complete chloroplast genome sequence ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2024Article
- Comparative cytogenetics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cytogenetic relationships in the species of Cucurbitaceae are becoming immensely important to answer questions pertaining to genome evolution. Here, a simplified and updated data resource on cytogenetics of Cucurbitaceae is presented on the basis of foundational parameters (basic, zygotic and gametic chromosome numbers, ploidy, genome size, karyotype) and molecular cytogenetics. We have revised and collated our own findings on seven agriculturally important Indian cucurbit species in a comparative account with the globally published reports. Chromosome count (of around 19% species) shows nearly three-fold differences while genome size (of nearly 5% species) shows 5.84-fold differences across the species. There is no significant correlation between chromosome numbers and nuclear genome sizes. The possible trend of evolution is discussed here based on molecular cytogenetics data, especially the types and distribution of nucleolus organizer regions (NORs). The review supersedes the scopes of general chromosome databases and invites scopes for continuous updates. The offline resource serves as an exclusive toolkit for research and breeding communities across the globe and also opens scope for future establishment of web-database on Cucurbitaceae cytogenetics.
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.