Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21279557›Full record

ReviewJournal of applied genetics2011

Biotechnological advancements in alfalfa improvement.

Suresh Kumar

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of applied genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Effects of Tannin-Rich Forages (Food science & nutrition · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Improved Protocol for EfficientPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. AlfalfaInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

1 author.

Suresh KumarDivision of Crop Improvement, Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, 284003, Uttar Pradesh, India. sureshkumar3_in@yahoo.co.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Review of biotechnology research in alfalfa shows that molecular techniques are extensively being used for basic and applied research toward alfalfa improvement. Biotechnological approaches have been used in two major areas, genomics and transgenics. In genomics, molecular markers, structural and functional genomics allowed identification of genes of interest and their regulatory components. Alfalfa being obstinate to genetic and genomic analysis, comparative genomics is used for molecular and genetic dissection of various plant processes in alfalfa. Alternatively, transgenic approach involves incorporation of specific and useful genes into alfalfa to improve the traits of interest. Input traits to improve agronomic performance and output traits to improve forage quality, or to produce novel industrial/pharmaceutical proteins, are the focus of current transgenic research in alfalfa. However, transgenic approach is controversial requiring cautious experimental design to combat bioisafety concerns. Ideally, forage alfalfa needs to possess more fermentable carbohydrates, proteins with balanced amino acid profile that degrade slower in rumen, improved winter hardiness, better water use efficiency, pest resistance and no anti-quality factors. Concerted efforts are required to bring together maximum of these characteristic features into the alfalfa plant.

Indexed as

Plants, Genetically ModifiedBiotechnologyGenetic EnhancementGenetic MarkersHerbicide ResistanceMedicago sativaPlant ImmunityPlant ProteinsProteomePublic OpinionGenetic MarkersPlant ProteinsProteome

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.