Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23144182›Full record

ArticleThe Plant cell2012

In planta somatic homologous recombination assay revisited: a successful and versatile, but delicate tool.

Holger Puchta, Barbara Hohn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Plant cell, 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
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A multi-level response to DNA damage induced by aluminium.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. DNA recombination in somatic plant cells: mechanisms and evolutionary consequences.Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2014
    Review
  18. 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

2 authors.

Holger PuchtaBotanical Institute II, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany. Holger.Puchta@kit.edu
Barbara Hohn

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Marker-transgene-dependent lines of Arabidopsis thaliana measuring somatic homologous recombination (SHR) have been available for almost two decades. Here we discuss mechanisms of marker-gene restoration, comment on results obtained using the reporter lines, and stress how caution must be applied to avoid experimental problems or false interpretation in the use of SHR reporter lines. Although theoretically possible, we conclude that explanations other than SHR are unlikely to account for restoration of marker gene expression in the SHR lines when used with appropriate controls. We provide an overview of some of the most important achievements obtained with the SHR lines, give our view of the limitations of the system, and supply the reader with suggestions on the proper handling of the SHR lines. We are convinced that SHR lines are and will remain in the near future a valuable tool to explore the mechanism and influence of external and internal factors on genome stability and DNA repair in plants.

Indexed as

Gene Expression Regulation, PlantPlants, Genetically ModifiedArabidopsisBase SequenceBiological AssayDNA RepairGenes, ReporterGenomic InstabilityGlucuronidaseHomologous RecombinationMolecular Sequence DataPlantsSequence Analysis, DNAStochastic ProcessesTransgenesGlucuronidase

Identifiers

PMID23144182
PMCPMC3531836

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.