ArticleBMC genomics2025
Transcripts and genomic intervals associated with variation in metabolite abundance in maize leaves under field conditions.
Article in BMC genomics, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Plants exhibit extensive environment-dependent intraspecific metabolic variation, which likely plays a role in determining variation in whole plant phenotypes. However, much of the work seeking to use natural variation to link genes and transcript's impacts on plant metabolism has employed data from controlled environments. Here, we generated and analyzed data on the variation in the abundance of 26 metabolites across 660 maize inbred lines under field conditions. We employ these data and previously published transcript and whole plant phenotype data reported for the same field experiment to identify both genomic intervals (through genome-wide association studies (GWAS)) and transcripts (using both transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) and an explainable artificial intelligence (AI) approach based on random forest (RF)) associated with variation in metabolite abundance. Both genome-wide association and random forest-based methods identified substantial numbers of significant associations including genes with plausible links to the metabolites they are associated with. In contrast, the transcriptome-wide association identified only six significant associations. In three cases, genetic markers associated with metabolic variation in our study colocalized with markers linked to variation in non-metabolic traits scored in the same experiment. We speculate that the poor performance of transcriptome-wide association studies in identifying transcript-metabolite associations may reflect a high prevalence of non-linear interactions between transcripts and metabolites and/or a bias towards rare transcripts playing a large role in determining intraspecific metabolic variation.
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.