Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19700365›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in plant biology2009

Why so repressed? Turning off transcription during plant growth and development.

Naden T Krogan, Jeff A Long

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in plant biology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Small Anther, a CPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. miR172 RegulatesCells · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Naden T KroganPlant Biology Laboratory, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, 10010 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
Jeff A Long
Salk Institute for Biological Studies · US

Funding

Mechanisms of Transcriptional Repression in ArabidopsisR01GM072764 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI LONG, JEFFREY A · 2004 to 2013
$3.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM072764NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM072764
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To ensure correct patterns of gene expression, eukaryotes use a variety of strategies to repress transcription. The transcriptional regulators mediating this repression can be broadly categorized as either passive or active repressors. While passive repressors rely on mechanisms such as steric hindrance of transcriptional activators to repress gene expression, active repressors display inherent repressive abilities commonly conferred by discrete repression domains. Recent studies have indicated that both categories of regulators function in a variety of plant processes, including hormone signal transduction, developmental pathways, and response to biotic and abiotic stresses.

Indexed as

Gene Expression Regulation, PlantPlant DevelopmentTranscription, GeneticGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalHistone DeacetylasesPlant Growth RegulatorsRepressor ProteinsSignal TransductionStress, PhysiologicalHistone DeacetylasesPlant Growth RegulatorsRepressor Proteins

Identifiers

PMID19700365
PMCPMC2757442
OpenAlexW1991534883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.