ArticlePloS one2024
Comparing the performances of SSR and SNP markers for population analysis in Theobroma cacao L., as alternative approach to validate a new ddRADseq protocol for cacao genotyping.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic Pattern and Diversity of Barbatia virescens: A RAD-Seq Analysis of Five Geographically Distributed Populations.Biochemical genetics · 2026Article
- Ancestry and morphoagronomical traits of cacao clones from the Cuban genebank reveal the diversity and potential for breeding of national genetic resources.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Generation and characterization of novel transcriptome-derived SSR markers for genetic applications in blueberry.Scientific reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proper cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) plant genotyping is mandatory for the conservation and use of the species genetic resources. A set of 15 international standard SSR markers was assumed as universal cacao genotyping system. Recently, different SNPs and SNP genotyping techniques have been exploited in cacao. However, a consensus on which to use has not been reached yet, driving the search for new approaches. To validate a new ddRADseq protocol for cacao genotyping, we compared the performances for population analysis of a dataset with 7,880 SNPs obtained from ddRADseq and the genotypic data from the aforementioned SSR set, using 158 cacao plants from productive farms and gene bank. Four genetic groups were identified with STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE softwares using SSR and SNP data, respectively. Similarities of cacao ancestries among these groups allowed the identification of analogous pairs of groups of individuals, referred to as: G1SSR/G1SNP, G2SSR/G2SNP, G3SSR/G3SNP, G4SSR/G4SNP, whether SSRs or SNPs were used. Both marker systems identified Amelonado and Criollo as the most abundant cacao ancestries among all samples. Genetic distance matrices from both data types were significantly similar to each other according to Mantel test (p < 0.0001). PCoA and UPGMA clustering mostly confirmed the identified genetic groups. AMOVA and FST pairwise comparison revealed a moderate to very large genetic differentiation among identified groups from SSR and SNP data. Genetic diversity parameters from SSR (Hobs = 0.616, Hexp = 0.524 and PIC = 0.544) were higher than that from SNP data (0.288, 0.264, 0.230). In both cases, genetic groups carrying the highest Amelonado proportion (G1SSR and G1SNP) had the lowest genetic diversity parameters among the identified groups. The high congruence among population analysis results using both systems validated the ddRADseq protocol employed for cacao SNP genotyping. These results could provide new ways for developing a universal SNP-based genotyping system very much needed for cacao genetic studies.
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.