Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20033445›Full record

ReviewSexual plant reproduction2009

Arabidopsis thaliana as a model for functional nectary analysis.

Brian W Kram, Clay J Carter

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sexual plant reproduction, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Flower Development in Arabidopsis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  6. Pollinator selection against toxic nectar as a key facilitator of a plant invasion.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Sex-Dependent Variation of Pumpkin (Frontiers in plant science · 2018
    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.

Brian W KramDepartment of Biology, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN 55812, USA.
Clay J Carter

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nectaries and nectar have received much research attention for well over 200 years due to their central roles in plant-pollinator interactions. Despite this, only a few genes have demonstrated impacts on nectary development, and none have been reported to mediate de novo nectar production. This scarcity of information is largely due to the lack of a model that combines sizeable nectaries, and high levels of nectar production, along with suitable genomics resources. For example, even though Arabidopsis thaliana has been useful for developmental studies, it has been largely overlooked as a model for studying nectary function due to the small size of its flowers. However, Arabidopsis nectaries, along with those of related species, are quite operational and can be used to discern molecular mechanisms of nectary form and function. A current understanding of the machinery underlying nectary function in plants is briefly presented, with emphasis placed on the prospects of using Arabidopsis as a model for studying these processes.

Indexed as

ArabidopsisFlowersModels, BiologicalPlant NectarPlant Nectar

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.