Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27790235›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2016

The Differences between NAD-ME and NADP-ME Subtypes of C

Xiaolan Rao, Richard A Dixon

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. A novel single-cell NAD-ME CThe New phytologist · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Identification of the cassavaFrontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
  7. Investigating theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  8. Mesophyll airspace unsaturation drives CProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Investigating thebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Elevated COBiology · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Xiaolan RaoBioDiscovery Institute and Department of Biological Sciences, University of North TexasDenton, TX, USA; BioEnergy Science Center, US Department of EnergyOak Ridge, TN, USA.
Richard A DixonBioDiscovery Institute and Department of Biological Sciences, University of North TexasDenton, TX, USA; BioEnergy Science Center, US Department of EnergyOak Ridge, TN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As an adaptation to changing climatic conditions that caused high rates of photorespiration, C

Indexed as

C4 photosynthesisC4 plantscomparative transcriptome analysisNAD-ME subtypeNADP-ME subtype

Identifiers

PMID27790235
PMCPMC5061750

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.