ArticleProtoplasma2012
ER disruption and GFP degradation during non-regenerable transformation of flax with Agrobacterium tumefaciens.
Article in Protoplasma, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genome Editing Approaches in Flax (International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- An Apical Meristem-TargetedFrontiers in plant science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Flax is considered as plant species susceptible to Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation. In this study, stability of flax transformation by Agrobacterium rhizogenes versus Agrobacterium tumefaciens was tested by using combined selection for antibiotic resistance and visual selection of green fluorescent protein (GFP)-fusion reporter targeted to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). Transformation with A. rhizogenes was stable for over 2 years, whereas transformation by A. tumefaciens resulted in non-regenerable stable transformation which was restricted solely to transgenic callus and lasted only 6-8 weeks. However, shoots regenerated from this callus appeared to be non-transgenic. Importantly, callus and root cells stably transformed with A. rhizogenes showed typical regular organization and dynamics of ER as visualized by GFP-ER marker. On the other hand, callus cells transformed with A. tumefaciens showed disintegrated ER structure and impaired dynamics which was accompanied with developmental degradation of GFP. Consequently, shoots which regenerated from such callus were all non-transgenic. Possible reasons for this non-regenerable flax transformation by A. tumefaciens are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.