Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26858724›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2015

Primary and Secondary Abscission in Pisum sativum and Euphorbia pulcherrima-How Do They Compare and How Do They Differ?

Anne K Hvoslef-Eide, Cristel M Munster, Cecilie A Mathiesen, Kwadwo O Ayeh, Tone I Melby, Paoly Rasolomanana, YeonKyeong Lee

Open access · goldAbstract 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anne K Hvoslef-EideDepartment of Plant Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences Aas, Norway.
Cristel M MunsterDepartment of Plant Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences Aas, Norway.
Cecilie A MathiesenDepartment of Plant Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences Aas, Norway.
Kwadwo O AyehDepartment of Plant Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences Aas, Norway.
Tone I MelbyDepartment of Plant Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences Aas, Norway.
Paoly RasolomananaDepartment of Plant Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences Aas, Norway.
YeonKyeong LeeDepartment of Plant Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences Aas, Norway.
Norwegian University of Life Sciences · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Abscission is a highly regulated and coordinated developmental process in plants. It is important to understand the processes leading up to the event, in order to better control abscission in crop plants. This has the potential to reduce yield losses in the field and increase the ornamental value of flowers and potted plants. A reliable method of abscission induction in poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima) flowers has been established to study the process in a comprehensive manner. By correctly decapitating buds of the third order, abscission can be induced in 1 week. AFLP differential display (DD) was used to search for genes regulating abscission. Through validation using qRT-PCR, more information of the genes involved during induced secondary abscission have been obtained. A study using two pea (Pisum sativum) mutants in the def (Developmental funiculus) gene, which was compared with wild type peas (tall and dwarf in both cases) was performed. The def mutant results in a deformed, abscission-less zone instead of normal primary abscission at the funiculus. RNA in situ hybridization studies using gene sequences from the poinsettia differential display, resulted in six genes differentially expressed for abscission specific genes in both poinsettia and pea. Two of these genes are associated with gene up- or down-regulation during the first 2 days after decapitation in poinsettia. Present and previous results in poinsettia (biochemically and gene expressions), enables a more detailed division of the secondary abscission phases in poinsettia than what has previously been described from primary abscission in Arabidopsis. This study compares the inducible secondary abscission in poinsettia and the non-abscising mutants/wild types in pea demonstrating primary abscission zones. The results may have wide implications on the understanding of abscission, since pea and poinsettia have been separated for 94-98 million years in evolution, hence any genes or processes in common are bound to be widespread in the plant kingdom.

Indexed as

def mutantsDifferentially expressed genesinduced abscissionpeapoinsettiaprimary abscissionRNA in situ hybridizationsecondary abscission

Identifiers

PMID26858724
PMCPMC4726753
OpenAlexW2253327836

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.