ReviewEye (London, England)2016
Light and the evolution of vision.
Review in Eye (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- MENDELSEEK: An algorithm that predicts mendelian genes and elucidates what makes them special.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Carotenoid bioavailability in humans reflects the mammalian nocturnal bottleneck: a position paper.Journal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition · 2026Article
- How fungi see the world: fungal photoreceptors and their role in the regulation of fungal biology.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2025Review
- Engineering for a clear image: a comparative focus on accommodation.Eye (London, England) · 2025Review
- Convergent TP53 loss and evolvability in cancer.BMC ecology and evolution · 2023Review
- A light-sensing system in the common ancestor of the fungi.Current biology : CB · 2022Review
- A new method for training creativity: narrative as an alternative to divergent thinking.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2022Article
- Transcriptional remodelling upon light removal in a model cnidarian: Losses and gains in gene expression.Molecular ecology · 2019Article
- Tissue-specific transcriptome analyses provide new insights into GPCR signalling in adult Schistosoma mansoni.PLoS pathogens · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It might seem a little ridiculous to cover the period over which vision evolved, perhaps 1.5 billion years, in only 3000 words. Yet, if we examine the photoreceptor molecules of the most basic eukaryote protists and even before that, in those of prokaryote bacteria and cyanobacteria, we see how similar they are to those of mammalian rod and cone photoreceptor opsins and the photoreceptive molecules of light sensitive ganglion cells. This shows us much with regard the development of vision once these proteins existed, but there is much more to discover about the evolution of even more primitive vision systems.
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.