Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11540648›Full record

ArticlePlanta1991

Gravitropism and starch statoliths in an Arabidopsis mutant.

N Saether, T H Iversen

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Planta, 1991. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

N SaetherDepartment of Botany, University of Trondheim, Dragvoll, Norway.
T H Iversen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mutant TC 7 of Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. has been reported to be starch-free and still exhibit root gravitropism (T. Caspar and B. G. Pickard 1989, Planta 177, 185-197). This is not consistent with the hypothesis that plastid starch has a statolith function in gravity perception. In the present study, initial light microscopy using the same mutant showed apparently starch-free statocytes. However, ultrastructural examination detected residues of amyloplast starch grains in addition to the starch-depleted amyloplasts. Applying a point-counting morphometric method, the starch grains in the individual amyloplasts in the mutant were generally found to occupy more than 20% and in a few cases up to 60% of the amyloplast area. In the wild type (WT) the starch occupied on average 98% of the amyloplast area and appeared as densely packed grains. The amyloplasts occupied 13.9% of the area of the statocyte in the mutant and 23.3% of the statocyte area in the WT. Sedimentation of starch-depleted amyloplasts in the mutant was not detected after 40 min of inversion while in the WT the amyloplasts sedimented at a speed of 6 micrometers h-1. The gravitropic reactivity and the curvature pattern were also examined in the WT and the mutant. The time-courses of root curvature in the WT and the mutant showed that when cultivated under standard conditions for 60 h in darkness, the curvatures were 83 degrees and 44 degrees, respectively, after 25 h of continuous stimulation in the horizontal position. The WT roots curved significantly more rapidly and with a more normal gravitropic pattern than those of the mutant. These results are discussed in relation to the results previously obtained with the mutant and with respect to the starch-statolith hypothesis.

Indexed as

ArabidopsisEndoplasmic ReticulumGravitationGravitropismGravity SensingMicroscopy, ElectronMutationPlant Root CapPlant RootsPlastidsStarchStarch

Identifiers

PMID11540648
OpenAlexW2063281217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.