ArticleScientific reports2024
Complete chloroplast genomes and phylogenetic relationships of Pedicularis chinensis and Pedicularis kansuensis.
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.
- Characterization of the Complete Mitochondrial Genome ofBiology · 2026Article
- Complete chloroplast genome ofFrontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Comparative plastome analysis of Schweinfurthia papilionacea and Schweinfurthia imbricata clarifying their taxonomic position in Lamiales.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of the Chloroplast Genomes of Cypripedium: Assessing the Roles of SSRs and TRs in the Non-Coding Regions of LSC in Shaping Chloroplast Genome Size.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Characterization of the complete chloroplast genome and comparative analysis of the phylogeny and codon usage bias of three Yunnan wild rice species.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- pSATdb 2.0: a database of organellar common, polymorphic, and unique microsatellites.Functional & integrative genomics · 2024Article
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
Abstract
The complete cp genomes of Pedicularis chinensis (GenBank accession number: OQ587614) and Pedicularis kansuensis (GenBank accession number: OQ587613) were sequenced, assembled, and annotated. Their chloroplast (cp) genome lengths were 146,452 bp, and 146,852 bp, respectively; 120 and 116 genes were identified, comprising 75 and 72 protein-coding genes (PCGs), 37 and 36 transfer RNA (tRNA) genes, and 8 and 8 ribosomal RNA (rRNA) genes, for P. chinensis and P. kansuensis, respectively. A simple sequence repeat (SSR) analysis revealed that the repetitive sequences were mainly composed of mononucleotide repeats (A/T motif) and dinucleotide repeats (AT/TA motif). Comparative genomics identified several variant genes (rpl22, rps19, rpl12, ycf1, trnH, psbA, and ndhH) and variant regions (trnS-GGA, trnV-UAC, ndhJ-trnV, ycf4-cemA, ndhE-nhdG, and rpl32-trnL) with a high Pi, indicating the potential to serve as deoxyribo nucleic acid (DNA) barcodes for Pedicularis species identification. The results show that the cp genomes of P. chinensis and P. kansuensis were the same as those of other plants in Pedicularis, with different degrees of AT preference for codons. Large differences in the number of SSRs and the expansion of the inverted repeat (IR) region showed strong variability and interspecific differentiation between these two species and other species represented in the genus Pedicularis. A phylogenetic analysis showed that P. kansuensis had the closest relationship with P. oliveriana, and P. chinensis had the closest relationship with P. aschistorhyncha. These results will facilitate the study of the phylogenetic classification and interspecific evolution of Pedicularis plants.
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.