Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16475006›Full record

ReviewTransgenic research2006

Transgenic plants for insect pest control: a forward looking scientific perspective.

N Ferry, M G Edwards, J Gatehouse, T Capell, P Christou, A M R Gatehouse

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Transgenic research, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Plant domestication and resistance to herbivory.International journal of plant genomics · 2013
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

N FerrySchool of Biology, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 7RU, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
M G Edwards
J Gatehouse
T Capell
P Christou
A M R Gatehouse

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the first successes of plant biotechnology has been the creation and commercialisation of transgenic crops exhibiting resistance to major insect pests. First generation products encompassed plants with single insecticidal Bt genes with resistance against major pests of corn and cotton. Modelling studies predicted that usefulness of these resistant plants would be short-lived, as a result of the ability of insects to develop resistance against single insecticidal gene products. However, despite such dire predictions no such collapse has taken place and the acreage of transgenic insect resistance crops has been increasing at a steady rate over the 9 years since the deployment of the first transgenic insect resistant plant. However, in order to assure durability and sustainability of resistance, novel strategies have been contemplated and are being developed. This perspective addresses a number of potentially useful strategies to assure the longevity of second and third generation insect resistant plants.

Indexed as

AnimalsGenetic EngineeringInsect ControlLepidopteraMannose-Binding LectinsNicotianaPlant LectinsPlants, Genetically ModifiedSignal TransductionMannose-Binding LectinsPlant Lectinssnowdrop lectin

Identifiers

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.