Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20483654›Full record

ArticleTrends in plant science2010

Under pressure, cell walls set the pace.

Lawrence J Winship, Gerhard Obermeyer, Anja Geitmann, Peter K Hepler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in plant science, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing 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

49 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Plant cell-like tip-growing polymer precipitate with structurally embedded multistimuli sensing ability.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

4 authors.

Lawrence J WinshipHampshire College, School of Natural Science, Amherst, MA 01002, USA.
Gerhard Obermeyer
Anja Geitmann
Peter K Hepler

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 17227Austrian Science Fund FWF P 21298
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Significant controversy still swirls around the regulation of extension by tip-growing cells, particularly during stable, oscillatory growth of pollen tubes. One explanation proposes that turgor pressure is both the controlling and driving force. We refute this hypothesis on theoretical and evidentiary grounds. Direct measurement of intracellular pressure reveals constant turgor even as growth rates change. Measured ion fluxes, notably potassium, are insufficient to account for the requisite osmotic changes. Water movement, and hence pressure gradients, occur throughout the cell, unrestricted to local domains. Increases in hydrostatic pressure alone would force water out of the cell rather than cause increased growth. We have recently demonstrated concomitant changes in the apical cell wall that account fully for observed changes in growth rate.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiological TransportCell WallOsmotic PressurePollenWaterWater

Identifiers

PMID20483654
PMCPMC2999822

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.