Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22639601›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2011

From models to crop species: caveats and solutions for translational metabolomics.

Takayuki Tohge, Tabea Mettler, Stéphanie Arrivault, Adam James Carroll, Mark Stitt, Alisdair R Fernie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Photorespiration: The Futile Cycle?Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Takayuki TohgeMax-Planck-Institute for Molecular Plant Physiology Potsdam-Golm, Germany.
Tabea Mettler
Stéphanie Arrivault
Adam James Carroll
Mark Stitt
Alisdair R Fernie

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although plant metabolomics is largely carried out on Arabidopsis it is essentially genome-independent, and thus potentially applicable to a wide range of species. However, transfer between species, or even between different tissues of the same species, is not facile. This is because the reliability of protocols for harvesting, handling and analysis depends on the biological features and chemical composition of the plant tissue. In parallel with the diversification of model species it is important to establish good handling and analytic practice, in order to augment computational comparisons between tissues and species. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics is one of the powerful approaches for metabolite profiling. By using a combination of different extraction methods, separation columns, and ion detection, a very wide range of metabolites can be analyzed. However, its application requires careful attention to exclude potential pitfalls, including artifactual changes in metabolite levels during sample preparation under variations of light or temperature and analytic errors due to ion suppression. Here we provide case studies with two different LC-MS-based metabolomics platforms and four species (Arabidopsis thaliana, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, Solanum lycopersicum, and Oryza sativa) that illustrate how such dangers can be detected and circumvented.

Indexed as

chemical diversityion suppressionLC–MSplant metabolomicssample preparationtranslational biology

Identifiers

PMID22639601
PMCPMC3355600

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.