Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25460077›Full record

ArticleCurrent opinion in plant biology2014

Re-constructing our models of cellulose and primary cell wall assembly.

Daniel J Cosgrove

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current opinion in plant biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 143 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
143citing papers in PubMed
15.5field-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

143 citing papers in PubMed, 436 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Selection of Effective Moss Control Agents forPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

83 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel J CosgroveDepartment of Biology, Penn State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA. Electronic address: dcosgrove@psu.edu.
Pennsylvania State University · US

Funding

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF MAIZE GROUP-1 POLLEN ALLERGENSR01GM060397 · NIGMS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-UNIV PARK · PI COSGROVE, DANIEL J · 2001 to 2004
$769k
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM060397
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The cellulose microfibril has more subtlety than is commonly recognized. Details of its structure may influence how matrix polysaccharides interact with its distinctive hydrophobic and hydrophilic surfaces to form a strong yet extensible structure. Recent advances in this field include the first structures of bacterial and plant cellulose synthases and revised estimates of microfibril structure, reduced from 36 to 18 chains. New results also indicate that cellulose interactions with xyloglucan are more limited than commonly believed, whereas pectin–cellulose interactions are more prevalent. Computational results indicate that xyloglucan binds tightest to the hydrophobic surface of cellulose microfibrils. Wall extensibility may be controlled at limited regions (‘biomechanical hotspots’) where cellulose–cellulose contacts are made, potentially mediated by trace amounts of xyloglucan.

Indexed as

CelluloseCell WallGlucansPectinsXylansCelluloseGlucansPectinsXylansxyloglucan

Identifiers

PMID25460077
PMCPMC4293254
OpenAlexW1968338503

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.