Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36973331›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Comparative physiological and biochemical mechanisms in diploid, triploid, and tetraploid watermelon (Citrullus lanatus L.) grafted by branches.

Mohamed Omar Kaseb, Muhammad Jawad Umer, Xuqiang Lu, Nan He, Muhammad Anees, Eman El-Remaly, Ahmed Fathy Yousef, Ehab A A Salama, Hazem M Kalaji, Wenge Liu

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Nutrients · 2024
    Article
  4. Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Mohamed Omar KasebZhengzhou Fruit Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Henan Joint International Research Laboratory of Fruits and Cucurbits Biological Science in South Asia, Zhengzhou, 450009, China. mohamedkaseb@yahoo.com.
Muhammad Jawad UmerZhengzhou Fruit Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Henan Joint International Research Laboratory of Fruits and Cucurbits Biological Science in South Asia, Zhengzhou, 450009, China.
Xuqiang LuZhengzhou Fruit Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Henan Joint International Research Laboratory of Fruits and Cucurbits Biological Science in South Asia, Zhengzhou, 450009, China.
Nan HeZhengzhou Fruit Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Henan Joint International Research Laboratory of Fruits and Cucurbits Biological Science in South Asia, Zhengzhou, 450009, China.
Muhammad AneesZhengzhou Fruit Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Henan Joint International Research Laboratory of Fruits and Cucurbits Biological Science in South Asia, Zhengzhou, 450009, China.
Eman El-RemalyCross Pollenated Plants Department, Horticulture Research Institute, Agriculture Research Center, Giza, 12611, Egypt.
Ahmed Fathy YousefDepartment of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, University of Al-Azhar (Branch Assiut), Assiut, 71524, Egypt.
Ehab A A SalamaAgricultural Botany Department, Faculty of Agriculture Saba Basha, Alexandria University, Alexandria, 21531, Egypt.
Hazem M KalajiDepartment of Plant Physiology, Institute of Biology, Warsaw University of Life Sciences SGGW, Warsaw, Poland.
Wenge LiuZhengzhou Fruit Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Henan Joint International Research Laboratory of Fruits and Cucurbits Biological Science in South Asia, Zhengzhou, 450009, China. liuwenge@caas.cn.
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences · CNZhengzhou Fruit Research Institute · CNAgricultural Research Center · EGAlexandria University · EGAssiut University · EGWarsaw University of Life Sciences · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Seed production for polyploid watermelons is costly, complex, and labor-intensive. Tetraploid and triploid plants produce fewer seeds/fruit, and triploid embryos have a harder seed coat and are generally weaker than diploid seeds. In this study, we propagated tetraploid and triploid watermelons by grafting cuttings onto gourd rootstock (C. maxima × C. mochata). We used three different scions: the apical meristem (AM), one-node (1N), and two-node (2N) branches of diploid, triploid, and tetraploid watermelon plants. We then evaluated the effects of grafting on plant survival, some biochemical traits, oxidants, antioxidants, and hormone levels at different time points. We found significant differences between the polyploid watermelons when the 1N was used as a scion. Tetraploid watermelons had the highest survival rates and the highest levels of hormones, carbohydrates, and antioxidant activity compared to diploid watermelons, which may explain the high compatibility of tetraploid watermelons and the deterioration of the graft zone in diploid watermelons. Our results show that hormone production and enzyme activity with high carbohydrate content, particularly in the 2-3 days after transplantation, contribute to a high survival rate. Sugar application resulted in increased carbohydrate accumulation in the grafted combination. This study also presents an alternative and cost-effective approach to producing more tetraploid and triploid watermelon plants for breeding and seed production by using branches as sprouts.

Indexed as

CitrullusTetraploidyCarbohydratesDiploidyPlant BreedingTriploidyCarbohydrates

Identifiers

PMID36973331
PMCPMC10043263
OpenAlexW4360989642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read75
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.