ReviewFrontiers in plant science2014
To respond or not to respond, the recurring question in plant mechanosensitivity.
Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanically induced localisation of SECONDARY WALL INTERACTING bZIP is associated with thigmomorphogenic and secondary cell wall gene expression.Quantitative plant biology · 2024Article
- Prior exposure of Arabidopsis seedlings to mechanical stress heightens jasmonic acid-mediated defense against necrotrophic pathogens.BMC plant biology · 2020Article
- Constructing living buildings: a review of relevant technologies for a novel application of biohybrid robotics.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2019Article
- Poplar stem transcriptome is massively remodelled in response to single or repeated mechanical stimuli.BMC genomics · 2017Article
- The RNA Polymerase-Associated Factor 1 Complex Is Required for Plant Touch Responses.Journal of experimental botany · 2017Article
- Mechanosensitive control of plant growth: bearing the load, sensing, transducing, and responding.Frontiers in plant science · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In nature, terrestrial plants experience many kinds of external mechanical stimulation and respond by triggering a network of signaling events to acclimate their growth and development. Some environmental cues, especially wind, recur on time scales varying from seconds to days. Plants thus have to adapt their sensitivity to such stimulations to avoid constitutive activation of stress responses. The study of plant mechanosensing has been attracting more interest in the last two decades, but plant responses to repetitive mechanical stimulation have yet to be described in detail. In this mini review, alongside classic experiments we survey recent descriptions of the kinetics of plant responses to recurrent stimulation. The ability of plants to modulate their responses to recurrent stimulation at the molecular, cellular, or organ scale is also relevant to other abiotic stimuli. It is possible that plants reduce their responsiveness to environmental signals as a function of their recurrence, recovering full sensitivity several days later. Finally, putative mechanisms underlying mechanosensing regulation are discussed.
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.