Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27637892›Full record

ReviewNanoscale research letters2016

Engineered Gold Nanoparticles and Plant Adaptation Potential.

Khwaja Salahuddin Siddiqi, Azamal Husen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nanoscale research letters, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing 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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Effects of Gold Nanoparticles onNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Nanoparticles: The Plant Saviour under Abiotic Stresses.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Genomic Damage Induced inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  17. BioengineeredToxics · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  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.

Khwaja Salahuddin SiddiqiDepartment of Chemistry, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, 202002, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Azamal HusenDepartment of Biology, College of Natural and Computational Sciences, University of Gondar, P.O. Box #196, Gondar, Ethiopia. adroot92@yahoo.co.in.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9120-5540

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Use of metal nanoparticles in biological system has recently been recognised although little is known about their possible effects on plant growth and development. Nanoparticles accumulation, translocation, growth response and stress modulation in plant system is not well understood. Plants exposed to gold and gold nanoparticles have been demonstrated to exhibit both positive and negative effects. Their growth and yield vary from species to species. Cytoxicity of engineered gold nanoparticles depends on the concentration, particle size and shape. They exhibit increase in vegetative growth and yield of fruit/seed at lower concentration and decrease them at higher concentration. Studies have shown that the gold nanoparticles exposure has improved free radical scavenging potential and antioxidant enzymatic activities and alter micro RNAs expression that regulate different morphological, physiological and metabolic processes in plants. These modulations lead to improved plant growth and yields. Prior to the use of gold nanoparticles, it has been suggested that its cost may be calculated to see if it is economically feasible.

Indexed as

GoldGrowth responsePlant mechanismProductivityStress modulationUptake

Identifiers

PMID27637892
PMCPMC5023645

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.