Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21637336›Full record

ReviewPloS one2011

Choosing and using a plant DNA barcode.

Peter M Hollingsworth, Sean W Graham, Damon P Little

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 425 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
425citing 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

425 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Complete Chloroplast Genomes ofEcology and evolution · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Complete Chloroplast Genome of theEcology and evolution · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

365 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Peter M HollingsworthGenetics and Conservation Section, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. P.Hollingsworth@rbge.org.uk
Sean W Graham
Damon P Little

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The main aim of DNA barcoding is to establish a shared community resource of DNA sequences that can be used for organismal identification and taxonomic clarification. This approach was successfully pioneered in animals using a portion of the cytochrome oxidase 1 (CO1) mitochondrial gene. In plants, establishing a standardized DNA barcoding system has been more challenging. In this paper, we review the process of selecting and refining a plant barcode; evaluate the factors which influence the discriminatory power of the approach; describe some early applications of plant barcoding and summarise major emerging projects; and outline tool development that will be necessary for plant DNA barcoding to advance.

Indexed as

DNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, PlantGene FlowGenetic MarkersSpecies SpecificityDNA, PlantGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID21637336
PMCPMC3102656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.