ReviewPlant cell reports2013
Physiology and toxicology of hormone-disrupting chemicals in higher plants.
Review in Plant cell reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deciphering Macromolecular Interactions Involved in Abiotic Stress Signaling: A Review of Bioinformatics Analysis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023Review
- Environmental microbiology as a mosaic of explored ecosystems and issues.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2015Review
- Metabolic profiling of Lolium perenne shows functional integration of metabolic responses to diverse subtoxic conditions of chemical stress.Journal of experimental botany · 2015Article
- Genome-Wide Transcriptional Profiling and Metabolic Analysis Uncover Multiple Molecular Responses of the Grass Species Lolium perenne Under Low-Intensity Xenobiotic Stress.Frontiers in plant science · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Higher plants are exposed to natural environmental organic chemicals, associated with plant-environment interactions, and xenobiotic environmental organic chemicals, associated with anthropogenic activities. The effects of these chemicals result not only from interaction with metabolic targets, but also from interaction with the complex regulatory networks of hormone signaling. Purpose-designed plant hormone analogues thus show extensive signaling effects on gene regulation and are as such important for understanding plant hormone mechanisms and for manipulating plant growth and development. Some natural environmental chemicals also act on plants through interference with the perception and transduction of endogenous hormone signals. In a number of cases, bioactive xenobiotics, including herbicides that have been designed to affect specific metabolic targets, show extensive gene regulation effects, which are more in accordance with signaling effects than with consequences of metabolic effects. Some of these effects could be due to structural analogies with plant hormones or to interference with hormone metabolism, thus resulting in situations of hormone disruption similar to animal cell endocrine disruption by xenobiotics. These hormone-disrupting effects can be superimposed on parallel metabolic effects, thus indicating that toxicological characterisation of xenobiotics must take into consideration the whole range of signaling and metabolic effects. Hormone-disruptive signaling effects probably predominate when xenobiotic concentrations are low, as occurs in situations of residual low-level pollutions. These hormone-disruptive effects in plants may thus be of importance for understanding cryptic effects of low-dosage xenobiotics, as well as the interactive effects of mixtures of xenobiotic pollutants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23553555What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.