Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27879779›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2008

Transgenic Plants as Sensors of Environmental Pollution Genotoxicity.

Igor Kovalchuk, Olga Kovalchuk

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Molecular Characterization and Identification ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  7. Plant synthetic biology could drive a revolution in biofuels and medicine.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2019
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Plants genotoxicity as pollution bioindicator in Jordan using comet assay.Physiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Igor KovalchukDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, T1K 3M4, Canada. igor.kovalchuk@uleth.ca.
Olga KovalchukDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, T1K 3M4, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid technological development is inevitably associated with manyenvironmental problems which primarily include pollution of soil, water and air. In manycases, the presence of contamination is difficult to assess. It is even more difficult toevaluate its potential danger to the environment and humans. Despite the existence ofseveral whole organism-based and cell-based models of sensing pollution and evaluationof toxicity and mutagenicity, there is no ideal system that allows one to make a quick andcheap assessment. In this respect, transgenic organisms that can be intentionally altered tobe more sensitive to particular pollutants are especially promising. Transgenic plantsrepresent an ideal system, since they can be grown at the site of pollution or potentiallydangerous sites. Plants are ethically more acceptable and esthetically more appealing thananimals as sensors of environmental pollution. In this review, we will discuss varioustransgenic plant-based models that have been successfully used for biomonitoringgenotoxic pollutants. We will also discuss the benefits and potential drawbacks of thesesystems and describe some novel ideas for the future generation of efficient transgenicphytosensors.

Indexed as

Arabidopsis thalianaNicotianaplant biosensorTransgenic phytosensor

Identifiers

PMID27879779
PMCPMC3663010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.