Molecular and agro-morphological characterization of new barley genotypes in arid environments.

BACKGROUND: Genetic diversity, population structure, agro-morphological traits, and molecular characteristics, are crucial for either preserving genetic resources or developing new cultivars. Due to climate change, water availability for agricultural use is progressively diminishing. This study used 100 molecular markers (25 TRAP, 22 SRAP, 23 ISTR, and 30 SSR). Additionally, 15 morphological characteristics were utilized to evaluate the optimal agronomic traits of 12 different barley genotypes under arid conditions. RESULTS: Substantial variations, ranging from significant to highly significant, were observed in the 15 agromorphological parameters evaluated among the 12 genotypes. The KSU-B101 barley genotype demonstrated superior performance in five specific traits: spike number per plant, 100-grain weight, spike number per square meter, harvest index, and grain yield. These results indicate its potential for achieving high yields in arid regions. The Sahrawy barley genotype exhibited the highest values across five parameters, namely leaf area, spike weight per plant, spike length, spike weight per square meter, and biological yield, making it a promising candidate for animal feed. The KSU-B105 genotype exhibited early maturity and a high grain count per spike, which reflects its early maturity and ability to produce a high number of grains per spike. This suggests its suitability for both animal feed and human food in arid areas. Based on marker data, the molecular study found that the similarity coefficients between the barley genotypes ranged from 0.48 to 0.80, with an average of 0.64. The dendrogram constructed from these data revealed three distinct clusters with a similarity coefficient of 0.80. Notably, the correlation between the dendrogram and its similarity matrix was high (0.903), indicating its accuracy in depicting the genetic relationships. The combined analysis revealed a moderate correlation between the morphological and molecular analysis, suggesting alignment between the two characterization methods. CONCLUSIONS: The morphological and molecular analyses of the 12 barley genotypes in this study effectively revealed the varied genetic characteristics of their agro-performance in arid conditions. KSU-B101, Sahrawy, and KSU-B105 have emerged as promising candidates for different agricultural applications in arid regions. Further research on these genotypes could reveal their full potential for breeding programs.

Nobel Prize paradox: Nobel Prize, not a noble prize.

The Nobel Prize is one of the most sought-after awards in science and society. However, its reputation is not without complexities, including constraints on laureates and biases in nominations. Navigating the delicate balance between recognition and the tangible impacts of awarded contributions should offer insight into the Prize's significance beyond mere prestige and monetary value. While other awards may boast higher financial rewards, they often lack the same level of prestige. The inclusion of public figures as laureates and the extensive media coverage surrounding the Nobel Prize may further elevate its perceived importance, though this may hide a more nuanced reality. Additionally, the positive associations linked to the name "Nobel" resembling the adjective "noble" can enhance the award's prestige. This subtle connection to "nobility" adds a layer of honor and distinction to the Prize, contributing to its perceived significance and prestige. Moreover, the overrepresentation of Nobel laureates from specific countries prompts scrutiny over the fulfillment of Nobel's testament, which prioritizes contributions to global well-being. This discrepancy raises questions about the inclusivity and global impact of the Prize.

Variations in Citations Across Databases: Implications for Journal Impact Factors.

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely used metric for ranking journals based on the number of citations garnered by papers published over a specific timeframe. To assess the accuracy of JIF values, I compared citation counts for 30 of my own publications across six major bibliography databases: CrossRef, Web of Science, Publisher records, Google Scholar, PubMed and Scopus. The analysis revealed noteworthy variations in citation counts, ranging from 10% to over 50% between the lowest and highest citation counts. Google Scholar records the highest citation numbers, while PubMed reported the lowest. Notably, Web of Science, whose citation data are used in JIF calculations, tend to underestimate citation counts compared to other databases. These observations raise concerns about the accuracy of JIF calculation based on Web of Science's citation data. The real JIF values for most journals would differ from those annually reported by Clarivate's journal citation reports (JCR). These citation discrepancies underscore the importance of comprehensive data collection and the necessity to include additional citation sources. Not because a paper is cited in one journal rather than another should it have a less or more citation weight. Ultimately, one citation remains one citation, regardless of its origin. Clarivate Analytics may thus need to consider integrating all citation sources for more accurate JIF values. Alternatively, Google Scholar could potentially develop its own journal or citation impact based on its extensive journal citation records. However, while making adjustments to how the Journal Impact Factor is calculated can make it more mathematically precise, it doesn't address the fundamental biases built into the metric. Even with refinements, the Journal Impact Factor will remain skewed due to how it's defined and used.