Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22610486›Full record

ReviewPlant cell reports2012

An evolutionary view of plant tissue culture: somaclonal variation and selection.

Qin-Mei Wang, Li Wang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Plant cell reports, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Comparative Study of the Genetic and Biochemical Variability ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. AutotetraploidFrontiers in plant science · 2020
    Article
  14. Plant RegenerationFrontiers in plant science · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Case Study of Somaclonal Variation in Resistance GenesInternational journal of genomics · 2017
    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

2 authors.

Qin-Mei WangInstitute of Genetics and Cytology, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, 130024, People's Republic of China. wqmwan@126.com
Li Wang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants regenerated from in vitro cultures possess an array of genetic and epigenetic changes. This phenomenon is known as 'somaclonal variation' and the frequency of somaclonal variation (SV) is usually elevated far beyond that expected in nature. Initially, the relationship between time in culture and detected SV was found to support the widespread belief that SV accumulates with culture age. However, a few studies indicated that older cultures yielded regenerants with less SV. What leads to this seemed contradiction? In this article, we have proposed a novel in vitro callus selection hypothesis, differentiation bottleneck (D-bottleneck) and dedifferentiation bottleneck (Dd-bottleneck), which consider natural selection theory to be fit for cell population in vitro. The results of multiplication races between the cells with the true-to-type phenotype and the deleterious cells determine the increase/decrease of SV frequencies in calli or regenerants as in vitro culture time goes on. The possibility of interpreting the complex situation of time-related SV by the evolutionary theory is discussed in this paper. In addition, the SV threshold, space-determined hypothesis and D-bottleneck are proposed to interpret the loss of the regenerability through a long period of plant tissue culture (PTC).

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionGenetic VariationSelection, GeneticModels, BiologicalPlantsTissue Culture Techniques

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.