Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28435807›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2015

A simple and highly efficient

Polyana Kelly Martins, Ana Paula Ribeiro, Bárbara Andrade Dias Brito da Cunha, Adilson Kenji Kobayashi, Hugo Bruno Correa Molinari

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Multi-omics intervention inFrontiers in plant science · 2022
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Efficient genome editing and gene knockout inPlant biotechnology (Tokyo, Japan) · 2021
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Plant science's next top models.Annals of botany · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Robust and ReproducibleFrontiers in plant science · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Status ofFrontiers in plant science · 2018
    Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Polyana Kelly MartinsGenetics and Biotechnology Laboratory, Embrapa Agroenergy, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Ana Paula RibeiroGenetics and Biotechnology Laboratory, Embrapa Agroenergy, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Bárbara Andrade Dias Brito da CunhaGenetics and Biotechnology Laboratory, Embrapa Agroenergy, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Adilson Kenji KobayashiGenetics and Biotechnology Laboratory, Embrapa Agroenergy, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Hugo Bruno Correa MolinariGenetics and Biotechnology Laboratory, Embrapa Agroenergy, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The production and use of sugarcane in Brazil is very important for bioenergy production and is recognized as one of the most efficient in the world. In our laboratory,

Indexed as

BioenergyC4 metabolismGreen milletModel systemSugarcane

Identifiers

PMID28435807
PMCPMC5374281
OpenAlexW2038253292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.