Cited by 56Agricultural Practices and Plant GeneticsGenetics and Plant BreedingGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

The Use of Combining Ability Analysis to Identify Elite Parents for Artemisia annua F1 Hybrid Production

Open access
Townsend, Theresa, Segura, Vincent, Chigeza, Godfree, Penfield, Teresa, Rae, Anne, Harvey, David, Bowles, Dianna, Graham, Ian A.·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Artemisia annua is an important medicinal crop used for the production of the anti-malarial compound artemisinin. In order to assist in the production of affordable high quality artemisinin we have carried out an A. annua breeding programme aimed at improving artemisinin concentration and biomass. Here we report on a combining ability analysis of a diallel cross to identify robust parental lines for hybrid breeding. The parental lines were selected based on a range of phenotypic traits to encourage heterosis. The general combining ability (GCA) values for the diallel parental lines correlated to the positive alleles of quantitative trait loci (QTL) in the same parents indicating the presence of beneficial alleles that contribute to parental performance. Hybrids generated from crossing specific parental lines with good GCA were identified as having an increase in both artemisinin concentration and biomass when grown either in glasshouse or experimental field trials and compared to controls. This study demonstrates that combining ability as determined by a diallel cross can be used to identify elite parents for the production of improved A. annua hybrids. Furthermore, the selection of material for breeding using this approach was found to be consistent with our QTL-based molecular breeding approach.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0061989

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The CNAP Artemisia Research Project screened more than 23,000 parental lines and developed about 768 hybrid lines, of which 268 most promising were selected for field trials.

    “They screened more than 23,000 parental lines for the desired traits and developed about 768 hybrid lines, of which the 268 most promising hybrids were selected for field trials (Graham et al. 2010; Townsend et al. 2013).”

    From Enhancing artemisinin content in and delivery from Artemisia annua: a review of alternative, classical, and transgenic approaches (2021) · cites this paper as Townsend et al. 2013

    The Results section (page unavailable) reports 30 selected parental lines and 366 hybrids with enough seed for screening, not about 768 hybrids. Materials and Methods, “Hybrid Field Trials” (page unavailable), says 48 hybrid lines were selected for field trials, contrary to the claimed 268. The paper does not report screening more than 23,000 parental lines. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [4]Laughlin JC, Heazlewood GN, Beattie BM (2002). Cultivation of Artemisia annua L. In: Wright CW, editor. Artemisia. New York: CRC Press 159–197.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Townsend, T., Segura, V., Chigeza, G., Penfield, T., Rae, A., Harvey, D., Bowles, D., & Graham, I. A.
Affiliations
  • University of York (GB)
  • Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR)
  • Agricultural Research Council of South Africa (ZA)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Graham, Ian A.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-04-23
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
e61989
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2078245667
Cited by
56
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
7.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Agricultural Practices and Plant Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetics and Plant Breeding
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Keywords
Artemisia annua, combining ability, general combining ability, diallel cross, hybrid breeding, biomass, heterosis, quantitative trait loci, molecular breeding, parent selection, medicinal plant breeding
MeSH terms
Alleles, Antimalarials, Breeding, Chimera, Crosses, Genetic, Hybrid Vigor, Phenotype, Biomass, Artemisia annua, Artemisinins, Quantitative Trait Loci

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review