ArticleJournal of cannabis research2026
Micropropagation of Cannabis sativa: genetic and epigenetic stability assessment over multiple generations.
Article in Journal of cannabis research, 2026. 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.
- Epigenome Editing for Cannabinoid Yield: Targets, Tools, and Priorities inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
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
backgroundMicropropagation is an increasingly sought-after propagation method in the cannabis industry as growers seek to maximize production efficiency, improve multiplication rates and cultivate plants that are free from biotic stress. However, knowledge about the impact of micropropagation on cannabis is still limited in the scientific literature, as most studies have primarily focused on optimizing environmental parameters and growth conditions.
methodsIn vitro cultures of three cannabis cultivars (Critical Purple Kush, Green Crack, and Gelato) were initiated and maintained for 60 weeks with subcultures every three weeks. Leaf samples were collected at the start and after every five subcultures for DNA extraction, and the genomes were sequenced using 3D-GBS and EM-seq to identify genetic (SNPs) and epigenetic (DMPs) variations, followed by GO and KEGG pathway analyses.
resultsThe results revealed that genomic variants from our CPK (16,169), GC (15,472) and GEL (16,605) samples were mostly located within the intergenic regions. Mutations seem to mostly occur during culture initiation and the first five subcultures, plateauing afterwards up to the 20th subculture. Methylation sequencing revealed that DMPs were less frequent than SNPs, with differential methylation levels showing cultivar-specific patterns varying between CPK, GC and GEL with respectively 22%, 9% and 13% for promoter regions, 13%, 5% and 6% for exon regions, 4%, 4% and 3% for intron regions and 61%, 82% and 78% for intergenic regions. These results indicate a strong cultivar dependency of epimutation and suggest their potential phenotypic impact. GO and KEGG pathway enrichment analyses of genes harboring SNPs and DMPs revealed functional associations relevant to cannabis micropropagation.
conclusionOur results highlight the importance of monitoring both genetic and epigenetic stability for long-term cannabis cultivation.
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.