ArticlePlants (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Identification of Insertion and Deletion (InDel) Markers for Chickpea (
Article in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Enhancing the marker repository and the development of breeder-friendly markers in chickpeas is important in relation to chickpea genomics-assisted breeding applications. Insertion-deletion (InDel) markers are widely distributed across genomes and easily observed with specifically designed primers, leading to less time, cost, and labor requirements. In light of this, the present study focused on the identification and development of InDel markers through the use of double-digest restriction site-associated DNA sequencing (ddRADSeq) data from 20 chickpea accessions. Bioinformatic analysis identified 20,700 InDel sites, including 15,031 (72.61%) deletions and 5669 (27.39%) insertions, among the chickpea accessions. The InDel markers ranged from 1 to 25 bp in length, while single-nucleotide-length InDel markers were found to represent the majority of the InDel sites and account for 79% of the total InDel markers. However, we focused on InDel markers wherein the length was greater than a single nucleotide to avoid any read or alignment errors. Among all of the InDel markers, 96.1% were less than 10 bp, 3.6% were between 10 and 20 bp, and 0.3% were more than 20 bp in length. We examined the InDel markers that were 10 bp and longer for the development of InDel markers based on a consideration of the genomic distribution and low-cost genotyping with agarose gels. A total of 29 InDel regions were selected, and primers were successfully designed to evaluate their efficiency. Annotation analysis of the InDel markers revealed them to be found with the highest frequency in the intergenic regions (82.76%), followed by the introns (6.90%), coding sequences (6.90%), and exons (3.45%). Genetic diversity analysis demonstrated that the polymorphic information content of the markers varied from 0.09 to 0.37, with an average of 0.20. Taken together, these results showed the efficiency of InDel marker development for chickpea genetic and genomic studies using the ddRADSeq method. The identified markers might prove valuable for chickpea breeders.
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.