Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 239

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genome-Wide Delineation of Natural Variation for Pod Shatter Resistance in Brassica napus

Open access
Raman, Harsh, Raman, Rosy, Kilian, Andrzej, Detering, Frank, Carling, Jason, Coombes, Neil, Diffey, Simon, Kadkol, Gururaj, Edwards, David, McCully, Margaret, Ruperao, Pradeep, Parkin, Isobel A. P., Batley, Jacqueline, Luckett, David J., Wratten, Neil·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Resistance to pod shattering (shatter resistance) is a target trait for global rapeseed (canola, Brassica napus L.), improvement programs to minimise grain loss in the mature standing crop, and during windrowing and mechanical harvest. We describe the genetic basis of natural variation for shatter resistance in B. napus and show that several quantitative trait loci (QTL) control this trait. To identify loci underlying shatter resistance, we used a novel genotyping-by-sequencing approach DArT-Seq. QTL analysis detected a total of 12 significant QTL on chromosomes A03, A07, A09, C03, C04, C06, and C08; which jointly account for approximately 57% of the genotypic variation in shatter resistance. Through Genome-Wide Association Studies, we show that a large number of loci, including those that are involved in shattering in Arabidopsis, account for variation in shatter resistance in diverse B. napus germplasm. Our results indicate that genetic diversity for shatter resistance genes in B. napus is limited; many of the genes that might control this trait were not included during the natural creation of this species, or were not retained during the domestication and selection process. We speculate that valuable diversity for this trait was lost during the natural creation of B. napus. To improve shatter resistance, breeders will need to target the introduction of useful alleles especially from genotypes of other related species of Brassica, such as those that we have identified.

Overview

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.0101673

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Metadata

Authors
Raman, H., Raman, R., Kilian, A., Detering, F., Carling, J., Coombes, N., Diffey, S., Kadkol, G., Edwards, D., McCully, M., Ruperao, P., Parkin, I. A. P., Batley, J., Luckett, D. J., & Wratten, N.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-07-09
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
e101673
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059557339
Cited by
239
References
2
FWCI
12.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Genome-Wide Delineation of Natural Variation for Pod Shatter Resistance in Brassica napus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0101673
The paper
Raman, H., Raman, R., Kilian, A., Detering, F., Carling, J., Coombes, N., Diffey, S., Kadkol, G., Edwards, D., McCully, M., Ruperao, P., Parkin, I. A. P., Batley, J., Luckett, D. J., & Wratten, N. (2014). Genome-Wide Delineation of Natural Variation for Pod Shatter Resistance in Brassica napus. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101673

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.