Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40032836›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

Impacts of reproductive systems on grapevine genome and breeding.

Hua Xiao, Yue Wang, Wenwen Liu, Xiaoya Shi, Siyang Huang, Shuo Cao, Qiming Long, Xu Wang, Zhongjie Liu, Xiaodong Xu and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The dynamics of introgression and parallel adaptation across North AmericanProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Banana breeding by genome design.Journal of integrative plant biology · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. The cytonuclear interactions during grapevine domestication.Journal of integrative plant biology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The dynamics of wildHorticulture research · 2025
    Article
  18. Genome-Wide Characterization ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
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

18 authors.

Hua Xiao *National Key Laboratory of Tropical Crop Breeding, Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3407-7009
Yue Wang *National Key Laboratory of Tropical Crop Breeding, Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Wenwen Liu *National Key Laboratory of Tropical Crop Breeding, Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Xiaoya Shi *National Key Laboratory of Tropical Crop Breeding, Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Siyang Huang *National Key Laboratory of Tropical Crop Breeding, Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Shuo CaoNational Key Laboratory of Tropical Crop Breeding, Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Qiming LongNational Key Laboratory of Tropical Crop Breeding, Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Xu WangNational Key Laboratory of Tropical Crop Breeding, Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Zhongjie LiuNational Key Laboratory of Tropical Crop Breeding, Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8406-6709
Xiaodong XuNational Key Laboratory of Tropical Crop Breeding, Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Yanling PengNational Key Laboratory of Tropical Crop Breeding, Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen, China.
Pengfei WangShandong Academy of Grape, Jinan, China.
Zhonghao JiangGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory for Plant Epigenetics, College of Life Sciences and Oceanography, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6675-5997
Summaira RiazSan Joaquin Valley Agricultural Center, United States Department of Agriculture, Parlier, CA, USA.
Andrew M WalkerSan Joaquin Valley Agricultural Center, United States Department of Agriculture, Parlier, CA, USA.
Brandon S GautDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1334-5556
Sanwen HuangNational Key Laboratory of Tropical Crop Breeding, Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8547-5309
Yongfeng ZhouNational Key Laboratory of Tropical Crop Breeding, Shenzhen Branch, Guangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Key Laboratory of Synthetic Biology, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen, China. zhouyongfeng@caas.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0780-2973

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (National Science Foundation of China) 32372662
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diversified reproductive systems can be observed in the plant kingdom and applied in crop breeding; however, their impacts on crop genomic variation and breeding remain unclear. Grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.), a widely planted fruit tree, underwent a shift from dioecism to monoecism during domestication and involves crossing, self-pollination, and clonal propagation for its cultivation. In this study, we discover that the reproductive types, namely, crossing, selfing, and cloning, dramatically impact genomic landscapes and grapevine breeding based on comparative genomic and population genetics of wild grapevine and a complex pedigree of Pinot Noir. The impacts are widely divergent, which show interesting patterns of genomic purging and the Hill-Robertson interference. Selfing reduces genomic heterozygosity, while cloning increases it, resulting in a "double U-shaped" site frequency spectrum (SFS). Crossing and cloning conceal while selfing purges most deleterious and structural burdens. Moreover, the close leakage of large-effect deleterious and structural variations in repulsion phases maintains heterozygous genomic regions in 4.3% of the grapevine genome after successive selfing for nine generations. Our study provides new insights into the genetic basis of clonal propagation and genomic breeding of clonal crops by purging deleterious variants while integrating beneficial variants through various reproductive systems.

Indexed as

Genome, PlantPlant BreedingVitisGenetics, PopulationGenetic VariationHeterozygotePollinationReproduction

Identifiers

PMID40032836
PMCPMC11876636

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.