Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26500676›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2015

A possible mechanism of biological silicification in plants.

Christopher Exley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Closing the Nutrient Loop-The New Approaches to Recovering Biomass Minerals during the Biorefinery Processes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  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

1 author.

Christopher ExleyThe Birchall Centre, Lennard-Jones Laboratories, Keele University Stoke-on-Trent, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants are significant exponents of biological silicification. While not all plants are generally considered as biosilicifiers the extent to which all plants deposit biogenic silica is largely unknown. There are plants which are known as silica accumulators though even in these plants the extent and degree to which their tissues are silicified is neither appreciated nor understood. An elucidation of the mechanism of silicification in biota is complicated by a lack of known bio-organic chemistry of silicic acid, the starting point in this process. Herein I argue the case that biological silicification is an entirely passive process. It is passive from the point of view that its underlying mechanisms and processes do not require us to invoke any as yet undiscovered silicon biochemistry. It is also passive in that although silicification confers clear biological/ecological advantages under certain conditions, it is actually non-essential in all plants and potentially, at least, toxic in some.

Indexed as

bioinorganic chemistrybiological silicificationplant silicasilicic acid

Identifiers

PMID26500676
PMCPMC4598575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.