Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41158695›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2025

Re-calibration of flow cytometry standards for plant genome size estimation.

Abhishek Soni, Robert J Henry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Abhishek SoniQueensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.
Robert J HenryQueensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Flow cytometry (FCM) and genome sequencing are complementary methods for estimating plant genome size (GS). However, discrepancies between the GS estimates derived from genome assemblies and FCM create ambiguity regarding the accuracy of these approaches. Approximately 12,000 plant GS measurements have been reported, with hardly any of them based on genome assemblies. Currently, FCM is the most frequently used method. Accurate GS estimation by FCM relies on internal standards with known GS values. However, previous GS calibrations, often based on incomplete reference genome assemblies, have led to significant discrepancies in GS estimates. Historically, the GS of a diploid plant species was estimated by doubling the size of a consensus genome assembly. However, consensus assemblies collapse homologous chromosomes into a single sequence, typically favouring the larger haplotype and potentially overestimating GS, especially in highly heterozygous species. Here, we applied haplotype-resolved genome assemblies to accurately recalibrate the reference standards. We utilized a recent gapless, telomere-to-telomere (T2T) consensus and the most complete phased genome assemblies of the Nipponbare rice as a primary standard to recalibrate five commonly used plant standards. Using the consensus genome as a reference revealed an overestimation of over 30% in widely used previous GS estimates for

Indexed as

consensus genome assemblyflow cytometrygenome assemblyhaplotypesNipponbare riceplant genome sizerecalibrationreference standards

Identifiers

PMID41158695
PMCPMC12555019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.