ArticleScientific reports2024
The complete Chloroplast genome of Stachys geobombycis and comparative analysis with related Stachys species.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chloroplast Phylogenomics and Barcode Discovery in MedicinalEcology and evolution · 2026Article
- The complete chloroplast genome sequence of Typhonium flagelliforme, an anti-cancer medicinal plant: genome structure, comparative and phylogenetic relationship analysis within Araceae.Functional & integrative genomics · 2026Article
- Reporting complete chloroplast genome of endangered red mulberry, useful for understanding hybridization and phylogenetic relationships.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Neuroprotective Potential ofBiology · 2025Article
- The complete chloroplast genome ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2025Article
- The complete chloroplast genome sequence and phylogenetic analysis ofMitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2025Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Herb genomics, at the forefront of traditional Chinese medicine research, combines genomics with traditional practices, facilitating the scientific validation of ancient remedies. This integration enhances public understanding of traditional Chinese medicine's efficacy and broadens its scope in modern healthcare. Stachys species encompass annual or perennial herbs or small shrubs, exhibiting simple petiolate or sessile leaves. Despite their wide-ranging applications across various fields, molecular data have been lacking, hindering the precise identification and taxonomic elucidation of Stachys species. To address this gap, we assembled the complete chloroplast (CP) genome of Stachys geobombycis and conducted reannotation and comparative analysis of seven additional species within the Stachys genus. The findings demonstrate that the CP genomes of these species exhibit quadripartite structures, with lengths ranging from 14,523 to 150,599 bp. Overall, the genome structure remains relatively conserved, hosting 131 annotated genes, including 87 protein coding genes, 36 tRNA genes, and 8 rRNA genes. Additionally, 78 to 98 SSRs and long repeat sequences were detected , and notably, 6 highly variable regions were identified as potential molecular markers in the CP genome through sequence alignment. Phylogenetic analysis based on Bayesian inference and maximum likelihood methods strongly supported the phylogenetic position of the genus Stachys as a member of Stachydeae tribe. Overall, this comprehensive bioinformatics study of Stachys CP genomes lays the groundwork for phylogenetic classification, plant identification, genetic engineering, evolutionary studies, and breeding research concerning medicinal plants within the Stachys genus.
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.