Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27775569›Full record

ReviewGenes2016

RNA Interference in Moths: Mechanisms, Applications, and Progress.

Jin Xu, Xia-Fei Wang, Peng Chen, Fang-Tao Liu, Shuai-Chao Zheng, Hui Ye, Ming-He Mo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Molecular Characterization of Vitellogenin and Its Receptor inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Amenability ofPhysiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

7 authors.

Jin XuState Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-Resources in Yunnan, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, China. xujin2798@126.com.
Xia-Fei WangState Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-Resources in Yunnan, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, China. wangxiafei9309@163.com.
Peng ChenInstitute of Plant Protection, Yunnan Academy of Forestry, Kunming 650201, China. pengchenn@126.com.
Fang-Tao LiuSchool of Physical Education, Wenshan Institute, Wenshan 663000, China. liufangtao@126.com.
Shuai-Chao ZhengState Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-Resources in Yunnan, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, China. yndxzsc@126.com.
Hui YeState Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-Resources in Yunnan, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, China. yehui@ynu.edu.cn.
Ming-He MoState Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Bio-Resources in Yunnan, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, China. minghemo@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The vast majority of lepidopterans, about 90%, are moths. Some moths, particularly their caterpillars, are major agricultural and forestry pests in many parts of the world. However, some other members of moths, such as the silkworm

Indexed as

dsRNAgene functionmothspest controlRNAi

Identifiers

PMID27775569
PMCPMC5083927

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.