Global programs / POPSEQ
The advancement of next-generation sequencing technologies in conjunction with new bioinformatics tools enabled fine-tuning of sequence-based, high-resolution mapping strategies for complex genomes. DEC abstract (PB-AAG-022)
Key awd:AID-OAA-A-13-0005
33 facts shown; 0 unconfirmed links; 0 support mechanisms (not programs); 5 documents cite this program.
The one-paragraph answer: years, implementer, funder and purpose, each from document metadata.
The advancement of next-generation sequencing technologies in conjunction with new bioinformatics tools enabled fine-tuning of sequence-based, high-resolution mapping strategies for complex genomes. Although genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) provides a large number of markers, its application for association mapping and genomics-assisted breeding is limited by a large proportion of missing data per marker. For species with a reference genomic sequence, markers can be ordered on the physical map. However, in the absence of reference marker order, the use and imputation of GBS markers is challenging. Here, we demonstrate how the population sequencing (POPSEQ) approach can be used to provide marker context for GBS in wheat. The utility of a POPSEQ-based genetic map as a reference map to create genetically ordered markers on a chromosome for hexaploid wheat was validated by constructing an independent de novo linkage map of GBS markers from a Synthetic W7984 x Opata M85 recombinant inbred line (SynOpRIL) population. The results indicated that there is strong agreement between the independent de novo linkage map and the POPSEQ mapping approach in mapping and ordering GBS markers for hexapl
Source: DEC abstract, PB-AAG-022 (2015). This is the source's own text, not a cited summary of the documents.
Operated in: Ethiopia, Ghana, Tanzania, Africa, Mali.
Districts, regions and facilities the program's own documents name, with what the document says it did there. Source: sentences in the program's documents
not in the map yet: no district, region or facility is named for this program yet; only Malawi and Guatemala have place data so far
No district, region or facility is named in this program's documents yet. Place dots exist for Malawi and Guatemala only so far. Towns and natural features are not drawn.
Countries where this program operated, set by the countries its documents name most often. Countries only tagged on documents are listed apart. Source: document tags, scope rule
Scope: global. Set by the countries the program's documents name most often. Low confidence.
How sure we are: 0.5.
When the program ran, from its start year to the latest document year. A hatched bar means the start is our estimate. Source: award and document years
Axis: award years, end from years in documents. The start year comes from award fiscal year; the end is the latest document year, so the program may have run longer.
Who started the program, and which administration it began under. Timing only; it does not say who started it. Source: initiative records, start year
Organizations that ran this program, from award records and document authors. Prime and sub roles are not split yet. Source: award and document records
Named as an institutional author on documents; whether prime, sub or consortium member is not recorded. Basis: read from a record field
| Name | Role | Years | Basis | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas State University | implementer | 2015 to 2018 | Stated in a document | 2 sources |
| Texas A & M University (TAMU) | implementer | 2023 | Stated in a document | 1 source |
Identifiers of the awards and the organizations that funded it. Amounts are under Money. Source: award records
Basis: read from a record field
| Name | Years | Basis | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| OAA-A-13-00005 (cooperative agreement, FY2013) | 2015 to 2023 | Stated in a document | 5 sources |
| OAA-L-14-00006 (other, FY2014) | 2018 | Stated in a document | 1 source |
Basis: read from a record field
Labels on the program's documents, not a description of what the program did. Source: DEC document tags
Sector profile (computed): Agriculture: crop production, inputs, pests, irrigation 45%; Natural resources and biodiversity (forests, wildlife, water resources) 22%; Water supply, sanitation and hygiene 16%
DEC topic and subject tags. They describe the documents, not what the program was. Each tag opens its evidence in the drawer.
Programs worth reading next, by topic, implementer, country and years. Similar by facets (topic, implementer, country, years) and, when available, description. It says the programs look alike, not how they are related in time. Source: catalog facets
Looking for similar programs.
Not recorded yet: support mechanisms, money rows, evaluations and lessons. A missing record is not a finding. USAspending records start in FY2007; earlier obligations are missing, not zero.
Every document that cites this program, grouped by a stage label from a weak classifier. Source: document library
| Texas A&M University College Station | implementer | 2017 | Stated in a document | 1 source |
| United Nations Univ | implementer | 2017 | Stated in a document | 1 source |
| University of Guelph | implementer | 2017 | Stated in a document | 1 source |
| Bahir Dar Univeristy | implementer | 2018 | Stated in a document | 1 source |
| North Carolina A&T State University | implementer | 2018 | Stated in a document | 1 source |
| Texas A&M AgriLife Research | implementer | 2018 | Stated in a document | 1 source |
None recorded. Evaluation studies linked to this program are listed under Evaluations and lessons.
None recorded for this program. A counterpart appears only when a document names the government body and its role.
| Name | Years | Basis | Evidence |
|---|
| U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) | 2015 to 2023 | Stated in a document | 2 sources |
| USAID Bureau for Food Security | 2017 | Stated in a document | 1 source |
| United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) | 2015 to 2017 | Stated in a document | 2 sources |