ArticlePhotosynthesis research2004
The conference at the airlie house in 1963.
Article in Photosynthesis research, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In many ways, the 1963 conference at Airlie House was an unusual event. The meeting convincingly demonstrated that photosynthetic research, previously reported mostly at conferences of botany and/or plant physiology, had become an independent and important field of biological research. New techniques had been developed and yielded exciting new results. Electron transport, photophosphorylation and their coupling were the main topics. Also, intermediates of electron transport, the enzymes catalyzing the reactions, and the structure of the photosynthetic apparatus, were discussed. The conference came at a time, when abundant new data had been accumulated seeking a platform. The editors (Bessel Kok and André Jagendorf) of the proceedings wrote in their introduction: 'Every so often someone manages to remove another stone from the wall through which we all want to see, and the crowds tend to flock around the new peep hole.' Beyond the scientific program, the organizers astounded the participants with an unusual social program.
Identifiers
16328840What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.