Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24373845›Full record

ReviewTrends in plant science2014

Wheels within wheels: the plant circadian system.

Polly Yingshan Hsu, Stacey L Harmer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in plant science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 195 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
195citing papers in PubMed
40.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

195 citing papers in PubMed, 388 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Temporal transcriptome analysis reveals the two-phase action of florigens in rice flowering.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

135 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 1 institution in 1 country.

Polly Yingshan HsuDepartment of Plant Biology, College of Biological Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
Stacey L HarmerDepartment of Plant Biology, College of Biological Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA. Electronic address: slharmer@ucdavis.edu.
University of Minnesota · US

Funding

Molecular analysis of circadian regulation in ArabidopsisR01GM069418 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI HARMER, STACEY L. · 2004 to 2016
$3.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM069418NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM069418
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Circadian clocks integrate environmental signals with internal cues to coordinate diverse physiological outputs so that they occur at the most appropriate season or time of day. Recent studies using systems approaches, primarily in Arabidopsis, have expanded our understanding of the molecular regulation of the central circadian oscillator and its connections to input and output pathways. Similar approaches have also begun to reveal the importance of the clock for key agricultural traits in crop species. In this review, we discuss recent developments in the field, including a new understanding of the molecular architecture underlying the plant clock; mechanistic links between clock components and input and output pathways; and our growing understanding of the importance of clock genes for agronomically important traits.

Indexed as

ArabidopsisArabidopsis ProteinsCircadian ClocksGene Expression Regulation, PlantArabidopsis Proteinsagricultural traitsArabidopsiscircadian clockinputoutputsystems biology

Identifiers

PMID24373845
PMCPMC3976767
OpenAlexW2012597120

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.