Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42509569›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2026

Covered smut screening in barley: power analysis and effect on agronomic traits.

Gopika Gopinathan, Fluturë Novakazi, Ines Berro, Julie Dawson, Therése Bengtsson, Lucía Gutiérrez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Gopika GopinathanDepartment of Bacteriology, University of WI-Madison, 1550 Linden Dr., Madison, WI, 53706, USA.
Fluturë NovakaziDepartment of Crop Health, Faculty of Agriculture, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Rostock, 18059, Rostock, Germany.
Ines BerroDepartment of Biometrics and Statistics, Agronomy College, Universidad de la República, Av. E. Garzón 780, 12900, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Julie DawsonDepartment of Plant and Agroecosystem Sciences, University of WI-Madison, 1575 Linden Dr., Madison, WI, 53706, USA.
Therése BengtssonDepartment of Plant Breeding, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sundsvägen 10, 23456, Alnarp, Sweden.
Lucía GutiérrezDepartment of Plant Breeding, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sundsvägen 10, 23456, Alnarp, Sweden. lucia.gutierrez.chacon@slu.se.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2957-3086

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCovered smut in barley caused by Ustilago hordei leads to yield reduction and quality loss of stored grains and is especially challenging in organic production. However, screening for resistance remains challenging. The goal of our research was to evaluate protocols for screening covered smut in barley under normal and speed breeding conditions that could be scaled up for breeding purposes. We considered favorable pathogen growth conditions, a sufficient sample size to detect differences among genotypes through a power analysis, sources of disease escape or avoidance, and the infection effect on agronomic traits.

resultsIn the first experiment, twenty genotypes treated with various inoculum concentrations were screened for disease incidence under a speed breeding system. Generally, low infection levels were found, likely due to disease escape or avoidance. Based on a power analysis, we modified the protocol to include more plants and improved pathogen growth conditions under a normal greenhouse system. With the modified protocol, the incidence of covered smut was significantly different among genotypes. The protocol also reduced the number of plants required to detect at least one infected plant. Artificial inoculation significantly decreased germination rates while head emergence, days to heading, and plant height were affected by disease infection in the most susceptible genotypes. We also found that covered smut incidence varied with tiller emergence order. The genotypes 'DH160779' (RES check), PI 270630', 'CIho15270', and 'MTV-color-158' presented potential resistance to covered smut.

conclusionThe protocol has a high power to differentiate moderately resistant barley genotypes and we confirmed that specific agronomic traits were affected by disease incidence in susceptible genotypes.

Indexed as

BarleyCovered smutGerminationPower analysisProtocolSpeed breeding

Identifiers

PMID42509569
PMCPMC13411101

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.