Cited by 50Plant tissue culture and regenerationEpigenetics and DNA MethylationCassava research and cyanide

Meristem micropropagation of cassava (Manihot esculenta) evokes genome-wide changes in DNA methylation

Open access
Kitimu, Shedrack R., Taylor, Julian, March, Timothy J., Tairo, Fred, Wilkinson, Mike J., Rodríguez López, Carlos M.·2015·Frontiers in Plant Science

Abstract

There is great interest in the phenotypic, genetic and epigenetic changes associated with plant in vitro culture known as somaclonal variation. In vitro propagation systems that are based on the use of microcuttings or meristem cultures are considered analogous to clonal cuttings and so widely viewed to be largely free from such somaclonal effects. In this study, we surveyed for epigenetic changes during propagation by meristem culture and by field cuttings in five cassava (Manihot esculenta) cultivars. Principal Co-ordinate Analysis of profiles generated by methylation-sensitive amplified polymorphism revealed clear divergence between samples taken from field-grown cuttings and those recovered from meristem culture. There was also good separation between the tissues of field samples but this effect was less distinct among the meristem culture materials. Application of methylation-sensitive Genotype by sequencing identified 105 candidate epimarks that distinguish between field cutting and meristem culture samples. Cross referencing the sequences of these epimarks to the draft cassava genome revealed 102 sites associated with genes whose homologs have been implicated in a range of fundamental biological processes including cell differentiation, development, sugar metabolism, DNA methylation, stress response, photosynthesis, and transposon activation. We explore the relevance of these findings for the selection of micropropagation systems for use on this and other crops.

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 · 10.3389/fpls.2015.00590

Cites

82 of 82 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?

  • Favoring direct organogenesis over indirect methods minimizes variation and preserves genetic fidelity, as indirect organogenesis typically consists of a callus phase associated with prolonged cell proliferation and extended culture exposure, increasing the risk of genetic instability.

    “Another crucial approach involves favoring direct organogenesis over indirect methods, as indirect organogenesis typically consists of a callus phase associated with prolonged cell proliferation and extended culture exposure, increasing the risk of genetic instability [158].”

    From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [158]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Manihot esculenta meristem micropropagation, variation was observed.

    “Variation observed”

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 84 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kitimu, S. R., Taylor, J., March, T. J., Tairo, F., Wilkinson, M. J., & Rodríguez López, C. M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • Mikocheni Agricultural Research Institute (TZ)
Venue
Frontiers in Plant Science
Published
2015-08-13
Volume
6
Pages
590-590
ISSN
1664-462X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1683146644
Cited by
50
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Plant Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-11-BTBR-0005)
  • Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Plant tissue culture and regeneration
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Cassava research and cyanide
Keywords
cassava, meristem culture, micropropagation, DNA methylation, epigenetic variation, somaclonal variation, methylation-sensitive amplified polymorphism, transposon activation, cell differentiation, photosynthesis, stress response, sugar metabolism

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