Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23830995›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in plant biology2013

Inside the trap: gland morphologies, digestive enzymes, and the evolution of plant carnivory in the Caryophyllales.

Tanya Renner, Chelsea D Specht

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in plant biology, 2013. 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
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Conserved and Promoter-SpecificInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Frontiers in plant science · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Long-read sequencing uncovers the adaptive topography of a carnivorous plant genome.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tanya RennerCenter for Insect Science and Department of Entomology, University of Arizona, United States. tanyarenner@email.arizona.edu
Chelsea D Specht
University of Arizona · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · US

Funding

POST DOCTORAL EXCELLENCE IN RESEARCH AND TEACHINGK12GM000708 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI STRAUSFELD, NICHOLAS J · 2000 to 2018
$21.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS K12 GM000708
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The digestion of prey by carnivorous plants is determined in part by suites of enzymes that are associated with morphologically and anatomically diverse trapping mechanisms. Chitinases represent a group of enzymes known to be integral to effective plant carnivory. In non-carnivorous plants, chitinases commonly act as pathogenesis-related proteins, which are either induced in response to insect herbivory and fungal elicitors, or constitutively expressed in tissues vulnerable to attack. In the Caryophyllales carnivorous plant lineage, multiple classes of chitinases are likely involved in both pathogenic response and digestion of prey items. We review what is currently known about trap morphologies, provide an examination of the diversity, roles, and evolution of chitinases, and examine how herbivore and pathogen defense mechanisms may have been coopted for plant carnivory in the Caryophyllales.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiological EvolutionChitinasesEvolution, MolecularFood ChainInsectaMagnoliopsidaPlant ProteinsChitinasesPlant Proteins

Identifiers

PMID23830995
PMCPMC3820484
OpenAlexW1985257494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.