ReviewAnnals of botany2014
Breaking conceptual locks in modelling root absorption of nutrients: reopening the thermodynamic viewpoint of ion transport across the root.
Review in Annals of botany, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of liquefaction disaster on farming systems at agriculture land based on technical and psychosocial perspectives.PloS one · 2021Article
- Combined Allosteric Responses Explain the Bifurcation in Non-Linear Dynamics ofFrontiers in plant science · 2020Article
- Fine-tuning of root elongation by ethylene: a tool to study dynamic structure-function relationships between root architecture and nitrate absorption.Annals of botany · 2016Article
- The Thermodynamic Flow-Force Interpretation of Root Nutrient Uptake Kinetics: A Powerful Formalism for Agronomic and Phytoplanktonic Models.Frontiers in physiology · 2016Review
- Thermodynamical journey in plant biology.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe top-down analysis of nitrate influx isotherms through the Enzyme-Substrate interpretation has not withstood recent molecular and histochemical analyses of nitrate transporters. Indeed, at least four families of nitrate transporters operating at both high and/or low external nitrate concentrations, and which are located in series and/or parallel in the different cellular layers of the mature root, are involved in nitrate uptake. Accordingly, the top-down analysis of the root catalytic structure for ion transport from the Enzyme-Substrate interpretation of nitrate influx isotherms is inadequate. Moreover, the use of the Enzyme-Substrate velocity equation as a single reference in agronomic models is not suitable in its formalism to account for variations in N uptake under fluctuating environmental conditions. Therefore, a conceptual paradigm shift is required to improve the mechanistic modelling of N uptake in agronomic models. SCOPE: An alternative formalism, the Flow-Force theory, was proposed in the 1970s to describe ion isotherms based upon biophysical 'flows and forces' relationships of non-equilibrium thermodynamics. This interpretation describes, with macroscopic parameters, the patterns of N uptake provided by a biological system such as roots. In contrast to the Enzyme-Substrate interpretation, this approach does not claim to represent molecular characteristics. Here it is shown that it is possible to combine the Flow-Force formalism with polynomial responses of nitrate influx rate induced by climatic and in planta factors in relation to nitrate availability.
conclusionsApplication of the Flow-Force formalism allows nitrate uptake to be modelled in a more realistic manner, and allows scaling-up in time and space of the regulation of nitrate uptake across the plant growth cycle.
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.