ArticleFrontiers in plant science2026
Genomic evidence supports the merging of
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Methods: In this study, we performed super genotyping-by-sequencing (super-GBS) on 87 wild accessions representing both sections, together with five outgroup accessions, generating genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data. This foundational genomic resource enabled subsequent population genetic structure analyses, phylogenomic reconstruction, genome-wide selection scans (FST and XP-CLR), and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to systematically investigate their genetic structure and evolutionary mechanisms. Results and discussion: Population structure and phylogenetic analyses revealed extensive admixture with no distinct genetic lineages between the two sections. The genome-wide mean FST was 0.013 (95% CI: 0.0125-0.0129), and standardized differentiation indices (G'ST = 0.016, Jost's D = 0.005) confirmed the absence of a significant genetic barrier. By integrating FST, XP-CLR, and GWAS, we identified 208 candidate genes from OP-stratified genome-wide scans. However, due to the limited marker density and the absence of genome-wide significant GWAS signals, these candidate genes should be regarded as exploratory. Collectively, our genomic evidence supports the merging of
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.