Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19502383›Full record

ReviewPlant & cell physiology2009

Phenome analysis in plant species using loss-of-function and gain-of-function mutants.

Takashi Kuromori, Shinya Takahashi, Youichi Kondou, Kazuo Shinozaki, Minami Matsui

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plant & cell physiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Genetic control of flowering time in rice: integration of Mendelian genetics and genomics.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2016
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors.

Takashi KuromoriGene Discovery Research Group, RIKEN Plant Science Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.
Shinya Takahashi
Youichi Kondou
Kazuo Shinozaki
Minami Matsui

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Analysis of genetic mutations is one of the most effective ways to investigate gene function. We now have methods that allow for mass production of mutant lines and cells in a variety of model species. Recently, large numbers of mutant lines have been generated by both 'loss-of-function' and 'gain-of-function' techniques. In parallel, phenotypic information covering various mutant resources has been acquired and released in web-based databases. As a result, significant progress in comprehensive phenotype analysis is being made through the use of these tools. Arabidopsis and rice are two major model plant species in which genome sequencing projects have been completed. Arabidopsis is the most widely used experimental plant, with a large number of mutant resources and several examples of systematic phenotype analysis. Rice is a major crop species and is used as a model plant, with an increasing number of mutant resources. Other plant species are also being employed in functional genetics research. In this review, the present status of mutant resources for large-scale studies of gene function in plant research and the current perspective on using loss-of-function and gain-of-function mutants in phenome research will be discussed.

Indexed as

Genes, PlantGenome, PlantArabidopsisDatabases, GeneticDNA, PlantGenomicsMutagenesis, InsertionalMutationOryzaPhenotypePlants, Genetically ModifiedDNA, Plant

Identifiers

PMID19502383
PMCPMC2709550

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.