Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21540885›Full record

ReviewHeredity2011

A unified approach to the estimation and interpretation of resistance costs in plants.

M M Vila-Aiub, P Neve, F Roux

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heredity, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Genetic architecture of the response ofFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Herbicide Resistance inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Fitness Cost Associated With EnhancedFrontiers in plant science · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  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

3 authors.

M M Vila-AiubDepartment of Ecology, IFEVA (CONICET), Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA), Buenos Aires, Argentina. vila@ifeva.edu.ar
P Neve
F Roux

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants exhibit a number of adaptive defence traits that endow resistance to past and current abiotic and biotic stresses. It is generally accepted that these adaptations will incur a cost when plants are not challenged by the stress to which they have become adapted--the so-called 'cost of adaptation'. The need to minimise or account for allelic variation at other fitness-related loci (genetic background control) is frequently overlooked when assessing resistance costs associated with plant defence traits. We provide a synthesis of the various experimental protocols that accomplish this essential requirement. We also differentiate those methods that enable the identification of the trait-specific or mechanistic basis of costs (direct methods) from those that provide an estimate of the impact of costs by examining the evolutionary trajectories of resistance allele frequencies at the population level (indirect methods). The advantages and disadvantages for each proposed experimental design are discussed. We conclude that plant resistance systems provide an ideal model to address fundamental questions about the cost of adaptation to stress. We also propose some ways to expand the scope of future studies for further fundamental and applied insight into the significance of adaptation costs.

Indexed as

Genetic FitnessAdaptation, BiologicalDisease ResistanceEvolution, MolecularGene FrequencyGenes, PlantGenotypeModels, GeneticPlantsSelection, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID21540885
PMCPMC3199924

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.