ArticleBMC plant biology2025
Selecting a core germplasm population using molecular markers: a case study with Eucalyptus pellita grown in common garden trials.
Article in BMC plant biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- SNPoptimizer: a scalable genetic-algorithm framework to derive minimal discriminatory SNP panels from large genotyping datasets.Molecular breeding : new strategies in plant improvement · 2026Article
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
Germplasm resources are crucial for revitalizing of the forest industry and plant breeding. Eucalyptus pellita is one of the most widely planted tropical eucalyptus species used for pulp and timber production. Maintaining large field-based germplasm collections for breeding and conservation is expensive. A smaller "core" population, retaining most of genetic diversity, is an efficient strategy. A comparative analysis using the marker-based tools DARwin, CoreFinder, and Core Hunter identified hypothetical subpopulations from 10 to 15% of the source population size, while still capturing the majority of the broader population diversity. Examination of phenotypic data in the source and hypothetical core populations over 34 months allowed comparison of growth and survival, and the effects of mortality on marker-based diversity parameters. After 34 months, the survival in the source population was 88%, while that in the core subsets ranged from 82 to 90%. Populations with higher heterozygosity showed somewhat superior survival, and the core population constructed using CoreFinder displayed marginally higher observed heterozygosity (Ho) and superior growth traits. Population structure and discriminant principal component (DAPC) analyses revealed that the study population was divided into two main subpopulations: New Guinea (NG) and Australia(AUS). The proportion of samples from NG and AUS selected using the three methods differed significantly, with the ratios from CoreF and CoreH closely resembling the source population. Although survival declined over time, the genetic diversity remained largely constant. Since the growth of the NG material was somewhat better than that of the AUS provenances, we advocate modifying the core selections or conducting selections within regions of provenance to ensure that the best breeding materials are represented in the core subpopulations. We explore the practicality of employing marker-based methods to select a core population in genebanks and/or breeding populations that rely on genetic diversity for trait improvement, which are likely to experience ongoing mortality due to inbreeding depression and competition.
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.