Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25725626›Full record

ReviewJournal of plant research2015

Historical review of research on plant cell dedifferentiation.

Munetaka Sugiyama

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of plant research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. OptimisedGenes · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Phloroglucinol Mediated Plant Regeneration ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  20. Review
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.

Munetaka SugiyamaBotanical Gardens, Graduate School of Science, The University of Tokyo, 3-7-1 Hakusan, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 112-0001, Japan, sugiyama@ns.bg.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp.
The University of Tokyo · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant cell dedifferentiation has long attracted interest as a key process for understanding the plasticity of plant development. In early studies, typical examples of plant cell dedifferentiation were described as physiological and cytological changes associated with wound healing or regenerative development. Subsequently, plant tissue and cell culture techniques, in which exciting progress was achieved after discovery of the hormonal control of cell proliferation and organogenesis in vitro in the 1950s, have been used extensively to study dedifferentiation. The pioneer studies of plant tissue/cell culture led to the hypothesis that many mature plant cells retain totipotency and related dedifferentiation to the initial step of the expression of totipotency. Plant tissue/cell cultures have provided experimental systems not only for physiological analysis, but also for genetic and molecular biological analysis, of dedifferentiation. More recently, proteomic, transcriptomic, and epigenetic analyses have been applied to the study of plant cell dedifferentiation. All of these works have expanded our knowledge of plant cell dedifferentiation, and current research is contributing to unraveling the molecular mechanisms. The present article provides a brief overview of the history of research on plant cell dedifferentiation.

Indexed as

ProteomeTranscriptomeCell DedifferentiationEpigenomicsPlant DevelopmentPlantsProteomicsProteome

Identifiers

PMID25725626
OpenAlexW1965752081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.