ArticleJournal of experimental botany2014
Unbiased estimation of chloroplast number in mesophyll cells: advantage of a genuine three-dimensional approach.
Article in Journal of experimental botany, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genome Architecture and Speciation in Plants and Animals.Molecular ecology · 2025Review
- Tonoplast-targeted bacterial transporter MerC enhances cadmium tolerance in Arabidopsis via vacuolar sequestration and cytoplasmic protection.Plant cell reports · 2025Article
- DeepD&Cchl: an AI tool for automated 3D single-cell chloroplast detection, counting, and cell type clustering.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Structure, function, and assembly of PSI in thylakoid membranes of vascular plants.The Plant cell · 2024Review
- Review
- Comparative sequence and methylation analysis of chloroplast and amyloplast genomes from rice.Plant molecular biology · 2019Article
- The Evolution of Per-cell Organelle Number.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2016Review
- Assembly of the Complete Sitka Spruce Chloroplast Genome Using 10X Genomics' GemCode Sequencing Data.PloS one · 2016Article
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
Chloroplast number per cell is a frequently examined quantitative anatomical parameter, often estimated by counting chloroplast profiles in two-dimensional (2D) sections of mesophyll cells. However, a mesophyll cell is a three-dimensional (3D) structure and this has to be taken into account when quantifying its internal structure. We compared 2D and 3D approaches to chloroplast counting from different points of view: (i) in practical measurements of mesophyll cells of Norway spruce needles, (ii) in a 3D model of a mesophyll cell with chloroplasts, and (iii) using a theoretical analysis. We applied, for the first time, the stereological method of an optical disector based on counting chloroplasts in stacks of spruce needle optical cross-sections acquired by confocal laser-scanning microscopy. This estimate was compared with counting chloroplast profiles in 2D sections from the same stacks of sections. Comparing practical measurements of mesophyll cells, calculations performed in a 3D model of a cell with chloroplasts as well as a theoretical analysis showed that the 2D approach yielded biased results, while the underestimation could be up to 10-fold. We proved that the frequently used method for counting chloroplasts in a mesophyll cell by counting their profiles in 2D sections did not give correct results. We concluded that the present disector method can be efficiently used for unbiased estimation of chloroplast number per mesophyll cell. This should be the method of choice, especially in coniferous needles and leaves with mesophyll cells with lignified cell walls where maceration methods are difficult or impossible to use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.