Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20033452›Full record

ArticleSexual plant reproduction2009

Histological comparison between wheat embryos developing in vitro from isolated zygotes and those developing in vivo.

Ferenc Bakos, László Szabó, Adela Olmedilla, Beáta Barnabás

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Embryo Rescue in Plant Breeding.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

4 authors.

Ferenc BakosPlant Cell Biology Department, Agricultural Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Martonvásár, Hungary. bakosf@freemail.hu
László Szabó
Adela Olmedilla
Beáta Barnabás

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is currently great interest shown in understanding the process of embryogenesis and, due to the relative inaccessibility of these structures in planta, extended studies are carried out in various in vitro systems. The culture of isolated zygotes in particular provides an excellent platform to study the process of in planta embryogenesis. However, very few comparisons have been made between zygotic embryos grown entirely in cultures and those grown in vivo. The present study analyses the differences and similarities between the in vitro and in vivo development of wheat zygotic embryos at the level of morphology and histology. The study was possible thanks to an efficient culture system and an appropriate method of preparing isolated wheat zygotes for microscopy. The in vitro embryos were fixed, embedded and sectioned in the two-celled, globular, club-shaped and fully differentiated stages. Embryos developing in vitro closely followed the morphology of their in planta counterparts and their cell types and tissues were also similar, demonstrating the applicability of the present culture system for studying the process of zygotic embryogenesis. However, some important differences were also detected in the case of in vitro development: the disturbance of or lack of initial polarity led to changes in the division symmetry of the zygotes and subsequently to the formation of uniform cells in the globular structures. Presumably, differences between the in vitro and in planta environments resulted in a lower level of differentiation and maturation in in vitro embryos and in abundant starch and protein accumulation in the scutellum.

Indexed as

Embryo Culture TechniquesEmbryonic DevelopmentGene Expression Regulation, PlantTriticumZygote

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.