Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25854181›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2015

Beyond the thale: comparative genomics and genetics of Arabidopsis relatives.

Daniel Koenig, Detlef Weigel

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Herbarium specimens reveal links betweenbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Genetic and environmental manipulation ofFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  11. The evolution of the hypotetraploidFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Daniel KoenigMax Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Spemannstrasse 35, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.
Detlef WeigelMax Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Spemannstrasse 35, 72076 Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For decades a small number of model species have rightly occupied a privileged position in laboratory experiments, but it is becoming increasingly clear that our knowledge of biology is greatly improved when informed by a broader diversity of species and evolutionary context. Arabidopsis thaliana has been the primary model organism for plants, benefiting from a high-quality reference genome sequence and resources for reverse genetics. However, recent studies have made a group of species also in the Brassicaceae family and closely related to A. thaliana a focal point for comparative molecular, genomic, phenotypic and evolutionary studies. In this Review, we emphasize how such studies complement continued study of the model plant itself, provide an evolutionary perspective and summarize our current understanding of genetic and phenotypic diversity in plants.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularAcclimatizationArabidopsisBrassicaceaeCapsellaGenome, PlantGenomicsModels, GeneticPhylogenyPolyploidyReproductionReproduction, AsexualSelf-Fertilization

Identifiers

PMID25854181

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.