Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22351485›Full record

ReviewAnnals of botany2012

Metabolomics of forage plants: a review.

Susanne Rasmussen, Anthony J Parsons, Christopher S Jones

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of botany, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
12.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Comparison of Plant Metabolites in Root Exudates ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  7. Examining the Impacts of COJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  8. Metabolomics and hormonomics to crack the code of filbert growth.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Chinese Black Truffle (Frontiers in microbiology · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Untargeted MetabotypingFrontiers in plant science · 2017
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Metabolomics as a tool to investigate abiotic stress tolerance in plants.International journal of molecular sciences · 2013
    Article
  19. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Susanne RasmussenAgResearch Limited, Grasslands Research Centre, Tennent Drive, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand. Susanne.rasmussen@agresearch.co.nz
Anthony J Parsons
Christopher S Jones
AgResearch · NZMassey University · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundForage plant breeding is under increasing pressure to deliver new cultivars with improved yield, quality and persistence to the pastoral industry. New innovations in DNA sequencing technologies mean that quantitative trait loci analysis and marker-assisted selection approaches are becoming faster and cheaper, and are increasingly used in the breeding process with the aim to speed it up and improve its precision. High-throughput phenotyping is currently a major bottle neck and emerging technologies such as metabolomics are being developed to bridge the gap between genotype and phenotype; metabolomics studies on forages are reviewed in this article. SCOPE: Major challenges for pasture production arise from the reduced availability of resources, mainly water, nitrogen and phosphorus, and metabolomics studies on metabolic responses to these abiotic stresses in Lolium perenne and Lotus species will be discussed here. Many forage plants can be associated with symbiotic microorganisms such as legumes with nitrogen fixing rhizobia, grasses and legumes with phosphorus-solubilizing arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, and cool temperate grasses with fungal anti-herbivorous alkaloid-producing Neotyphodium endophytes and metabolomics studies have shown that these associations can significantly affect the metabolic composition of forage plants. The combination of genetics and metabolomics, also known as genetical metabolomics can be a powerful tool to identify genetic regions related to specific metabolites or metabolic profiles, but this approach has not been widely adopted for forages yet, and we argue here that more studies are needed to improve our chances of success in forage breeding.

conclusionsMetabolomics combined with other '-omics' technologies and genome sequencing can be invaluable tools for large-scale geno- and phenotyping of breeding populations, although the implementation of these approaches in forage breeding programmes still lags behind. The majority of studies using metabolomics approaches have been performed with model species or cereals and findings from these studies are not easily translated to forage species. To be most effective these approaches should be accompanied by whole-plant physiology and proof of concept (modelling) studies. Wider considerations of possible consequences of novel traits on the fitness of new cultivars and symbiotic associations need also to be taken into account.

Indexed as

BreedingMetabolomicsAgricultureBiomassEndophytesFungiGenomicsGenotypeMagnoliopsidaMycorrhizaePhenotypeRhizobiaceaeSelection, GeneticStress, PhysiologicalSymbiosis

Identifiers

PMID22351485
PMCPMC3478039
OpenAlexW2138639591

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.