Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16143910›Full record

ArticlePhotosynthesis research2005

Physcomitrella patens and Ceratodon purpureus, mosses as model organisms in photosynthesis studies.

Leeann E Thornton, Nir Keren, Itzhak Ohad, Himadri B Pakrasi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Photosynthesis research, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Leeann E ThorntonDepartment of Biology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.
Nir Keren
Itzhak Ohad
Himadri B Pakrasi
Washington University in St. Louis · USHebrew University of Jerusalem · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the discovery of targeted gene replacement, moss biology has been rapidly advancing over the last 10 years. This study demonstrates the usefulness of moss as a model organism for plant photosynthesis research. The two mosses examined in this study, Physcomitrella patens and Ceratodon purpureus, are easily cultured through vegetative propagation. Growth tests were conducted to determine carbon sources suitable for maintaining heterotrophic growth while photosynthesis was blocked. Photosynthetic parameters examined in these plants indicated that the photosynthetic activity of Ceratodon and Physcomitrella is more similar to vascular plants than cyanobacteria or green algae. Ceratodon plants grown heterotrophically appeared etiolated in that the plants were taller and plastids did not differentiate thylakoid membranes. After returning to the light, the plants developed green, photosynthetically active chloroplasts. Furthermore, UV-induced mutagenesis was used to show that photosynthesis-deficient mutant Ceratodon plants could be obtained. After screening approximately 1000 plants, we obtained a number of mutants, which could be arranged into the following categories: high fluorescence, low fluorescence, fast and slow fluorescence quenching, and fast and slow greening. Our results indicate that in vivo biophysical analysis of photosynthetic activity in the mosses can be carried out which makes both mosses useful for photosynthesis studies, and Ceratodon best sustains perturbations in photosynthetic activity.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalPhotosynthesisBryopsidaMicroscopy, Electron, TransmissionMutationOxygenPhenotypeSpectrometry, FluorescenceOxygen

Identifiers

PMID16143910
OpenAlexW2055600280

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.