Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Archive
    • Preview Papers
  • About
    • Editorial Board and Staff
    • About the Journal
    • Terms & Privacy
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Contact Us
  • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Other Publications
    • Plant Physiology
    • The Plant Cell
    • Plant Direct
    • The Arabidopsis Book
    • Teaching Tools in Plant Biology
    • ASPB
    • Plantae

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Plant Cell
  • Other Publications
    • Plant Physiology
    • The Plant Cell
    • Plant Direct
    • The Arabidopsis Book
    • Teaching Tools in Plant Biology
    • ASPB
    • Plantae
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Plant Cell

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Archive
    • Preview Papers
  • About
    • Editorial Board and Staff
    • About the Journal
    • Terms & Privacy
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Contact Us
  • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
  • Follow PlantCell on Twitter
  • Visit PlantCell on Facebook
  • Visit Plantae
LetterLetter to the Editor
Open Access

A Proposal Regarding Best Practices for Validating the Identity of Genetic Stocks and the Effects of Genetic Variants

Joy Bergelson, Edward S. Buckler, Joseph R. Ecker, Magnus Nordborg, Detlef Weigel
Joy Bergelson
University of ChicagoChicago, Illinois 60637
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edward S. Buckler
USDA-ARS/Cornell UniversityIthaca, New York 14850
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Edward S. Buckler
Joseph R. Ecker
HHMI-The Salk Institute for Biological StudiesLa Jolla, California 92037
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Joseph R. Ecker
Magnus Nordborg
Gregor Mendel Institute1030 Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Magnus Nordborg
Detlef Weigel
Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology72076 Tübingen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Detlef Weigel

Published March 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.15.00502

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
  • © 2016 American Society of Plant Biologists. All rights reserved.

Colleagues from the medical field have estimated that up to one-third of cell lines are contaminated with other cell lines or are misidentified; in addition, repeated passaging substantially changes cell line properties (reviewed in Hughes et al., 2007). The medical community has therefore begun to establish standards for verification of cell lines and genetic stocks, and NIH has announced efforts to require validation and to aid researchers in validating their biological material (Lorsch et al., 2014). Plant biologists should do the same. Even though the propagation of seed stocks cannot be directly compared with animal cell culture, contamination is a real possibility, and it is not uncommon that the same genetic stock produces different phenotypes in different laboratories. Confirming the genetic identity of research material is necessary to know whether such phenotypic differences reflect gene-by-environment (GxE) interactions or whether they are simply due to apples being compared to oranges.

There are two principal areas of concern in this regard. The first one is that transgenic lines, mutants, or accessions are not what they are supposed to be; that is, they carry a different transgene, allele, or mutation, or they are a different accession than assumed. Likely sources are inadvertent seeding of soil, mislabeling of plants, and mix-ups during seed collection. Those who work with self-fertilizing species such as Arabidopsis thaliana must be aware of the risk of outcrossing. In the field, the rate of outcrossing is often a few percent (Bergelson et al., 1998; Bomblies et al., 2010; Platt et al., 2010). In addition, specific genetic backgrounds with altered floral morphologies or reduced male fertility can greatly increase outcrossing rates (Peng et al., 2006; Luo and Widmer, 2013).

Systematic analyses have indicated the scope of these issues. For example, genotyping with single nucleotide polymorphism markers revealed that up to 5% of Arabidopsis accessions in the stock centers were mislabeled (Anastasio et al., 2011; Simon et al., 2012). Another example comes from grapevine (Vitis vinifera), where an inbred Pinot Noir derivative was targeted for genome sequencing, but it was not noticed until later that there was either an uncontrolled outcrossing event, or a complete mix-up, so that in the end a Pinot Noir × Helfensteiner hybrid, or possibly a selfed Helfensteiner derivative, was sequenced (Jaillon et al., 2007). Similarly, wild-type strains of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii have complex histories, with spontaneous mutations and several examples of misidentification (Gallaher et al., 2015). In at least one case, a mutant line was more closely related to other wild-type lines than its supposed isogenic parent (Blaby et al., 2013). There are also plenty of anecdotes of mix-ups of T-DNA insertion lines in Arabidopsis; one published example is a line for which a specific, published insertion subsequently could not be detected again (Richter et al., 2010).

A range of issues across the entire research and breeding community affects the consistent preservation of germplasm identity. The visually obvious hybrid vigor of outcrossed progeny in maize (Zea mays) or distinct morphological defects in many mutants help reduce the problem, but genetic contamination or mix-ups may occur easily, especially if one is not familiar with subtle phenotypic variation. The standard approaches for maintaining germplasm identity in most model species are good, but even if errors are reduced to 1% per generation, roughly 10% of stocks will be mislabeled after 10 generations without genetic validation, which should be common practice.

A second area of concern is that phenotypic effects can be due to additional, unrecognized genetic variants segregating in a stock. Initially pure genetic lines can diverge through secondary, spontaneous mutations, while progeny of lines that were initially not pure can diverge through fixation of segregating variation. One such example is the Arabidopsis accession Landsberg erecta, where one set of stocks being used in the community has a hua2 mutation, while another set of lines does not (Doyle et al., 2005). The origin of this mutation is unclear. There are also several examples of spontaneous mutations in Arabidopsis accessions identified by their phenotypic effects (Loudet et al., 2008; Laitinen et al., 2010), including one that arose in the Col-0 reference strain (Coustham et al., 2014). Hundreds of mutations have been documented in another Col-0 lab stock by whole-genome sequencing (Cubillos et al., 2014), and thousands of single base pair mutations along with several new transposon insertions have apparently occurred since a standard Chlamydomonas line was established in the laboratory (Gallaher et al., 2015). In Arabidopsis, genome-wide mutation rates are ∼1 per generation for single nucleotide polymorphisms and 0.5 per generation for indels (Ossowski et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2014). Guidelines for how many differences are deemed acceptable before a stock is given a distinct name or identifier are needed and should be developed by each community.

An example of fixation of segregating variants is the soybean reference cultivar Williams 82. Several different lines are in use, apparently because Williams 82 was distributed before it was fully inbred and thus completely homozygous throughout the genome (Haun et al., 2011). Residual heterozygosity giving rise to different sublines among inbreds with the same name has also been described in maize (Romay et al., 2013). This even extends to the maize reference genome B73, where 1.5 Mb (0.07%) of the genome differs between sublines that are nearly 50 years old now (Gore et al., 2009). Similarly, it has only recently been recognized, based on whole-genome resequencing, that many common Chlamydomonas laboratory strains are segregants apparently derived from a single cross (Gallaher et al., 2015).

A related problem is that phenotypes are attributed to a known mutation in a particular stock, but these are instead caused by second-site mutations; several such examples from Arabidopsis are listed in Table 1. Similarly, insufficient characterization of the exact molecular defect at a mutant locus can lead to confusion, for example, when a mutation is more complex than initially realized and affects more than one gene. This was the case for tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) fas, Arabidopsis abp1-1, and Chlamydomonas sta6 mutants, where at least some aspects of the reported phenotypes were caused by genes adjacent to the ones initially thought to be responsible (Blaby et al., 2013; Dai et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2015). These problems are not restricted to mutant lines; a trisomic Arabidopsis stock that was otherwise considered wild type turned out to have a complex history involving introgression of a mutation into a different background, with that mutation explaining an important aspect of the phenotype (Salomé and Weigel, 2015).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Second-Site Mutations Responsible for Major Phenotypes in Arabidopsis

Because of these issues, we suggest a series of best practices for verifying both the identity of genetic stocks and the causal relationship between a genetic variant and a phenotype.

1. State in an article as clearly and exactly as possible the origin of mutants, transgenics, and accessions, including genetic stocks that were used as background for random mutagenesis, genome editing, or generation of transgene insertions. This should minimally include the stock center or the scientist and laboratory who donated the stock and preferably also the approximate date when the stock was acquired and, if available, seed lot information.

2. State if and how the identity of genetic stocks and the effects of specific mutations were verified. For example, if no further molecular or genetic validation was undertaken, please state this, potentially with an appropriate reason (example: “root phenotype is diagnostic for this mutant”). Examples of genetic validation that can link a phenotype to a specific genetic variant include backcrossing and cosegregation analysis, transgenic complementation, examination of a second allele, and recreation of a mutant using gene editing. In the case of mutants, best practice is often to phenotype a segregating population, using homozygous wild-type siblings as control, to account for genetic background differences that may not be represented in the original parent line. Examples of molecular validation include PCR amplification of transgene sequences (O’Malley et al., 2015), targeted analysis of selected polymorphic markers, array-based genotyping or genotyping-by-sequencing (Salathia et al., 2007; Anastasio et al., 2011; Elshire et al., 2011; Simon et al., 2012), shallow resequencing, or even complete resequencing. Ensure that seeds of key stocks for a published article are saved, and consider resubmitting such stocks to stock centers.

While large-scale genotyping or resequencing is not yet practical as a standard, such efforts are already going on for the accessions from the Arabidopsis 1001 Genomes project, in conjunction with curation of the 1001 Genomes collection of accessions by the ABRC, similar to large-scale genotyping efforts at the U.S. national maize inbred seed bank (Romay et al., 2013). Each community focused on a specific organism should also consider how to empower all laboratories, regardless of their size, resources, and bioinformatics sophistication, to harness the power of ever cheaper genome sequencing and genotyping for stock validation, along the lines suggested by NIH for vertebrate cell lines (Lorsch et al., 2014). A key role should be played by stock centers, which should implement routines for validating newly submitted as well as propagated stocks and which may consider offering services that go beyond their core species and provide access to colleagues working with less popular, non-model organisms. Useful in this regard are Web resources that allow facile matching of patterns of genome-wide polymorphisms found in a specific stock with a database of sequenced genomes, as they have been implemented for Chlamydomonas (https://bitbucket.org/gallaher/custom-chlamy-generator) and Arabidopsis (http://tools.1001genomes.org/strain_id/). Other communities are encouraged to develop similar resources.

Of course, efforts must be commensurate with the number of lines analyzed or the goal of a specific experiment. That is, greater care needs to be taken in a study that primarily focuses on a single genetic stock than, say, a GWAS study with hundreds or thousands of lines. In the latter case, an estimate of the number of misidentified lines should suffice, e.g., by genotyping a subsample. As another example, a mutant that has an easily recognized, distinctive phenotype and that is being used merely for a complementation cross needs to be less rigorously validated than a mutant that is used for detailed phenotypic comparison with an isogenic wild-type control.

We would like to emphasize that spending a few hundred dollars and a week or so on validating genetic stocks is appropriate, since experimental articles typically report on research that has been performed over years and has cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars (including salaries). Of course, all of us should expend more effort to avoid mix-ups in the first place, for example, by using better practices, such as strict separation of areas for seed production and harvest from areas for sowing seeds.

Acknowledgments

We thank the following colleagues for pointing us to specific cases of concern and relevant articles: Claude Becker and Ignacio Rubio-Somoza, Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology; Brian Dilkes, Purdue University; Yuval Eshed, Weizmann Institute; Elizabeth Haswell, Washington University; David Jackson, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; Dan Kliebenstein, UC Davis; Aaron Liston, Oregon State University; Olivier Loudet, INRA; Sabeeha Merchant, UCLA; Jason Reed, UNC Chapel Hill; Paul Schulze-Lefert, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research; Karin Schumacher, University of Heidelberg; Nathan Springer, University of Minnesota; Norman Warthmann, Australian National University; and Yunde Zhao, UC San Diego. We thank Nancy Eckardt along with The Plant Cell editorial leadership and five anonymous reviewers for sharpening the focus of this letter.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

J.B., E.S.B., J.R.E., M.N., and D.W. conceived and wrote the article.

Footnotes

  • ↵[OPEN] Articles can be viewed online without a subscription.

  • Received June 5, 2015.
  • Revised February 25, 2016.
  • Accepted March 8, 2016.
  • Published March 8, 2016.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Anastasio, A.E.,
    2. Platt, A.,
    3. Horton, M.,
    4. Grotewold, E.,
    5. Scholl, R.,
    6. Borevitz, J.O.,
    7. Nordborg, M.,
    8. Bergelson, J.
    (2011). Source verification of mis-identified Arabidopsis thaliana accessions. Plant J. 67: 554–566.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bennett, T.,
    2. Sieberer, T.,
    3. Willett, B.,
    4. Booker, J.,
    5. Luschnig, C.,
    6. Leyser, O.
    (2006). The Arabidopsis MAX pathway controls shoot branching by regulating auxin transport. Curr. Biol. 16: 553–563.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Bergelson, J.,
    2. Stahl, E.,
    3. Dudek, S.,
    4. Kreitman, M.
    (1998). Genetic variation within and among populations of Arabidopsis thaliana. Genetics 148: 1311–1323.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Blaby, I.K., et al
    . (2013). Systems-level analysis of nitrogen starvation-induced modifications of carbon metabolism in a Chlamydomonas reinhardtii starchless mutant. Plant Cell 25: 4305–4323.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Bomblies, K.,
    2. Yant, L.,
    3. Laitinen, R.A.,
    4. Kim, S.T.,
    5. Hollister, J.D.,
    6. Warthmann, N.,
    7. Fitz, J.,
    8. Weigel, D.
    (2010). Local-scale patterns of genetic variability, outcrossing, and spatial structure in natural stands of Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Genet. 6: e1000890.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Coustham, V.,
    2. Vlad, D.,
    3. Deremetz, A.,
    4. Gy, I.,
    5. Cubillos, F.A.,
    6. Kerdaffrec, E.,
    7. Loudet, O.,
    8. Bouché, N.
    (2014). SHOOT GROWTH1 maintains Arabidopsis epigenomes by regulating IBM1. PLoS One 9: e84687.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Cubillos, F.A.,
    2. Stegle, O.,
    3. Grondin, C.,
    4. Canut, M.,
    5. Tisné, S.,
    6. Gy, I.,
    7. Loudet, O.
    (2014). Extensive cis-regulatory variation robust to environmental perturbation in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 26: 4298–4310.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Dai, X.,
    2. Zhang, Y.,
    3. Zhang, D.,
    4. Chen, J.,
    5. Gao, X.,
    6. Estelle, M.,
    7. Zhao, Y.
    (2015). Embryonic lethality of Arabidopsis abp1-1 is caused by deletion of the adjacent BSM gene. Nat. Plants 1: 15183.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Doyle, M.R.,
    2. Bizzell, C.M.,
    3. Keller, M.R.,
    4. Michaels, S.D.,
    5. Song, J.,
    6. Noh, Y.S.,
    7. Amasino, R.M.
    (2005). HUA2 is required for the expression of floral repressors in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 41: 376–385.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Elshire, R.J.,
    2. Glaubitz, J.C.,
    3. Sun, Q.,
    4. Poland, J.A.,
    5. Kawamoto, K.,
    6. Buckler, E.S.,
    7. Mitchell, S.E.
    (2011). A robust, simple genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) approach for high diversity species. PLoS One 6: e19379.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Enders, T.A.,
    2. Oh, S.,
    3. Yang, Z.,
    4. Montgomery, B.L.,
    5. Strader, L.C.
    (2015). Genome sequencing of Arabidopsis abp1-5 reveals second-site mutations that may affect phenotypes. Plant Cell 27: 1820–1826.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. Frontiers in Plant Science Editorial Office (2015). Retraction: Mechanosensitive channel candidate MCA2 is involved in touch-induced root responses in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 6: 153.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Gallaher, S.D.,
    2. Fitz-Gibbon, S.T.,
    3. Glaesener, A.G.,
    4. Pellegrini, M.,
    5. Merchant, S.S.
    (2015). Chlamydomonas genome resource for laboratory strains reveals a mosaic of sequence variation, identifies true strain histories, and enables strain-specific studies. Plant Cell 27: 2335–2352.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Gore, M.A.,
    2. Chia, J.M.,
    3. Elshire, R.J.,
    4. Sun, Q.,
    5. Ersoz, E.S.,
    6. Hurwitz, B.L.,
    7. Peiffer, J.A.,
    8. McMullen, M.D.,
    9. Grills, G.S.,
    10. Ross-Ibarra, J.,
    11. Ware, D.H.,
    12. Buckler, E.S.
    (2009). A first-generation haplotype map of maize. Science 326: 1115–1117.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Haun, W.J.,
    2. Hyten, D.L.,
    3. Xu, W.W.,
    4. Gerhardt, D.J.,
    5. Albert, T.J.,
    6. Richmond, T.,
    7. Jeddeloh, J.A.,
    8. Jia, G.,
    9. Springer, N.M.,
    10. Vance, C.P.,
    11. Stupar, R.M.
    (2011). The composition and origins of genomic variation among individuals of the soybean reference cultivar Williams 82. Plant Physiol. 155: 645–655.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Hughes, P.,
    2. Marshall, D.,
    3. Reid, Y.,
    4. Parkes, H.,
    5. Gelber, C.
    (2007). The costs of using unauthenticated, over-passaged cell lines: how much more data do we need? Biotechniques 43: 575–586, 577–578, 581–582 passim.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Jaillon, O., et al
    .; French-Italian Public Consortium for Grapevine Genome Characterization (2007). The grapevine genome sequence suggests ancestral hexaploidization in major angiosperm phyla. Nature 449: 463–467.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Jiang, C.,
    2. Mithani, A.,
    3. Belfield, E.J.,
    4. Mott, R.,
    5. Hurst, L.D.,
    6. Harberd, N.P.
    (2014). Environmentally responsive genome-wide accumulation of de novo Arabidopsis thaliana mutations and epimutations. Genome Res. 24: 1821–1829.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Kriegel, A., et al
    . (2015). Job sharing in the endomembrane system: Vacuolar acidification requires the combined activity of V-ATPase and V-PPase. Plant Cell 27: 3383–3396.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Laitinen, R.A.,
    2. Schneeberger, K.,
    3. Jelly, N.S.,
    4. Ossowski, S.,
    5. Weigel, D.
    (2010). Identification of a spontaneous frame shift mutation in a nonreference Arabidopsis accession using whole genome sequencing. Plant Physiol. 153: 652–654.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Lorsch, J.R.,
    2. Collins, F.S.,
    3. Lippincott-Schwartz, J.
    (2014). Cell Biology. Fixing problems with cell lines. Science 346: 1452–1453.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Loudet, O.,
    2. Michael, T.P.,
    3. Burger, B.T.,
    4. Le Metté, C.,
    5. Mockler, T.C.,
    6. Weigel, D.,
    7. Chory, J.
    (2008). A zinc knuckle protein that negatively controls morning-specific growth in Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105: 17193–17198.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Luo, Y.,
    2. Widmer, A.
    (2013). Herkogamy and its effects on mating patterns in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS One 8: e57902.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. O’Malley, R.C.,
    2. Barragan, C.C.,
    3. Ecker, J.R.
    (2015). A user’s guide to the Arabidopsis T-DNA insertion mutant collections. Methods Mol. Biol. 1284: 323–342.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Ossowski, S.,
    2. Schneeberger, K.,
    3. Lucas-Lledó, J.I.,
    4. Warthmann, N.,
    5. Clark, R.M.,
    6. Shaw, R.G.,
    7. Weigel, D.,
    8. Lynch, M.
    (2010). The rate and molecular spectrum of spontaneous mutations in Arabidopsis thaliana. Science 327: 92–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Peng, P.,
    2. Chan, S.W.,
    3. Shah, G.A., and
    4. Jacobsen, S.E.
    (2006). Plant genetics: increased outcrossing in hothead mutants. Nature 443: E8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Platt, A., et al
    . (2010). The scale of population structure in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Genet. 6: e1000843.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Richter, R.,
    2. Behringer, C.,
    3. Müller, I.K.,
    4. Schwechheimer, C.
    (2010). The GATA-type transcription factors GNC and GNL/CGA1 repress gibberellin signaling downstream from DELLA proteins and PHYTOCHROME-INTERACTING FACTORS. Genes Dev. 24: 2093–2104.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Romay, M.C., et al
    . (2013). Comprehensive genotyping of the USA national maize inbred seed bank. Genome Biol. 14: R55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Salathia, N.,
    2. Lee, H.N.,
    3. Sangster, T.A.,
    4. Morneau, K.,
    5. Landry, C.R.,
    6. Schellenberg, K.,
    7. Behere, A.S.,
    8. Gunderson, K.L.,
    9. Cavalieri, D.,
    10. Jander, G.,
    11. Queitsch, C.
    (2007). Indel arrays: an affordable alternative for genotyping. Plant J. 51: 727–737.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Salomé, P.A.,
    2. Weigel, D.
    (2015). Plant genetic archaeology: whole-genome sequencing reveals the pedigree of a classical trisomic line. G3 (Bethesda) 5: 253–259.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Simon, M.,
    2. Simon, A.,
    3. Martins, F.,
    4. Botran, L.,
    5. Tisné, S.,
    6. Granier, F.,
    7. Loudet, O.,
    8. Camilleri, C.
    (2012). DNA fingerprinting and new tools for fine-scale discrimination of Arabidopsis thaliana accessions. Plant J. 69: 1094–1101.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Westphal, L.,
    2. Scheel, D.,
    3. Rosahl, S.
    (2008). The coi1-16 mutant harbors a second site mutation rendering PEN2 nonfunctional. Plant Cell 20: 824–826.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Wu, Y.,
    2. Li, Y.,
    3. Liu, Y.,
    4. Xie, Q.
    (2015). Cautionary notes on the usage of abi1-2 and abi1-3 mutants of Arabidopsis ABI1 for functional studies. Mol. Plant 8: 335–338.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Xu, C., et al
    . (2015). A cascade of arabinosyltransferases controls shoot meristem size in tomato. Nat. Genet. 47: 784–792.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

Table of Contents

Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Plant Cell.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Proposal Regarding Best Practices for Validating the Identity of Genetic Stocks and the Effects of Genetic Variants
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Plant Cell
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Plant Cell web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A Proposal Regarding Best Practices for Validating the Identity of Genetic Stocks and the Effects of Genetic Variants
Joy Bergelson, Edward S. Buckler, Joseph R. Ecker, Magnus Nordborg, Detlef Weigel
The Plant Cell Mar 2016, 28 (3) 606-609; DOI: 10.1105/tpc.15.00502

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
A Proposal Regarding Best Practices for Validating the Identity of Genetic Stocks and the Effects of Genetic Variants
Joy Bergelson, Edward S. Buckler, Joseph R. Ecker, Magnus Nordborg, Detlef Weigel
The Plant Cell Mar 2016, 28 (3) 606-609; DOI: 10.1105/tpc.15.00502
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Acknowledgments
    • AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

In this issue

The Plant Cell: 28 (3)
The Plant Cell
Vol. 28, Issue 3
Mar 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Front Matter (PDF)
View this article with LENS

More in this TOC Section

  • Ready, Primed, Go: Ending the Racism Pandemic in Science
  • Planting Equity: Using What We Know to Cultivate Growth as a Plant Biology Community
  • Araport Lives: An Updated Framework for Arabidopsis Bioinformatics
Show more LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Similar Articles

Our Content

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Plant Cell Preview
  • Archive
  • Teaching Tools in Plant Biology
  • Plant Physiology
  • Plant Direct
  • Plantae
  • ASPB

For Authors

  • Instructions
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Editorial Board and Staff
  • Policies
  • Recognizing our Authors

For Reviewers

  • Instructions
  • Peer Review Reports
  • Journal Miles
  • Transfer of reviews to Plant Direct
  • Policies

Other Services

  • Permissions
  • Librarian resources
  • Advertise in our journals
  • Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2021 by The American Society of Plant Biologists

Powered by HighWire