Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22811510›Full record

ArticleAnnals of botany2013

Congratulations, you have been carefully chosen to represent an important developmental regulator!

Alon Samach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of botany, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Advances in Citrus Flowering: A Review.Frontiers in plant science · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Alon SamachThe Robert H. Smith Institute of Plant Sciences and Genetics in Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Quality Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, 76100, Israel. samach@agri.huji.ac.il

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudying a process in a new species often relies on focusing our attention to a candidate gene, encoding a protein similar to one with a known function. Not all the choices seem to be prudent. SCOPE: This Viewpoint includes an overview of issues that are encountered during research of candidate genes. Defining a match for a gene of interest, deciding whether variation in ESTs or RNAseq data for a certain transcript, represent more than one gene. The problem of incorrect annotation of genes due to incorrect in-silico splicing, is also mentioned. The author's humble opinion on how to deal with these issues is provided.

conclusionsThe vast amount of new sequence data provides us with great possibilities for giant leaps in our understanding. Still, we cannot afford to skip over the tedious steps required to confirm that we are indeed studying the correct gene, and try to be sure that the complex expression pattern we observe is not a composite of several genes.

Indexed as

Genes, PlantBase SequenceDatabases, GeneticDNA PrimersExpressed Sequence TagsFlowersGene Expression ProfilingMalusMolecular Sequence AnnotationPlantsDNA Primers

Identifiers

PMID22811510
PMCPMC3579433

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.