ArticleFrontiers in plant science2025
Re-calibration of flow cytometry standards for plant genome size estimation.
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.
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.
- Subtle but Significant: Intraspecific Genome Size Variation in Durum Wheat Landraces and Cultivars.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Unveiling centromeric retrotransposon dynamics through a high-quality rye genome assembly.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Genome analysis of Channel millet reveals a wild dodecaploid shaped by environmental variability.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Haplotype-Resolved Genome of the Critically Endangered, Paleo-endemic Tree, Eidothea hardeniana.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Comparative pharmacokinetic derivations for axicabtagene ciloleucel and brexucabtagene autoleucel in the treatment of B cell malignancies.Molecular therapy. Advances · 2026Article
- Commentary: Re-calibration of flow cytometry standards for plant genome size estimation.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.