Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28066499›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2016

Duplication and Divergence of Leucine-Rich Repeat Receptor-Like Protein Kinase (

Ping-Li Liu, Lu-Lu Xie, Peng-Wei Li, Jian-Feng Mao, Hui Liu, Shu-Min Gao, Peng-Hao Shi, Jun-Qing Gong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Genome scanning for identification and mapping of receptor-like kinase (RLK) gene superfamily inPhysiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2017
    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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ping-Li LiuCollege of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Beijing Forestry University Beijing, China.
Lu-Lu XieDepartment of Chinese Cabbage, Institute of Vegetables and Flowers, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences Beijing, China.
Peng-Wei LiState Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing, China.
Jian-Feng MaoCollege of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Beijing Forestry University Beijing, China.
Hui LiuCollege of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Beijing Forestry University Beijing, China.
Shu-Min GaoCollege of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Beijing Forestry University Beijing, China.
Peng-Hao ShiCollege of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Beijing Forestry University Beijing, China.
Jun-Qing GongCollege of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Beijing Forestry University Beijing, China.
Beijing Forestry University · CNChinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences · CNInstitute of Botany · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leucine-rich repeat receptor-like protein kinases (LRR-RLKs) are the largest group of receptor-like kinases, which are one of the largest protein superfamilies in plants, and play crucial roles in development and stress responses. Although the evolution of

Indexed as

Amborella trichopodaexpressionfunctional divergencegene structureleucine-rich repeat receptor-like kinase (LRR-RLK)protein motifprotein structure

Identifiers

PMID28066499
PMCPMC5179525
OpenAlexW2566844929

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.