Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28669983›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2017

Exploiting induced and natural epigenetic variation for crop improvement.

Nathan M Springer, Robert J Schmitz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 102 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

102 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Dehydration Stress Memory Genes in Tomato (International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Testing the potential of zebularine to induce heritable changes in crop growth and development.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Nathan M SpringerDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA.
Robert J SchmitzDepartment of Genetics, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant breeding has traditionally relied on combining the genetic diversity present within a species to develop combinations of alleles that provide desired traits. Epigenetic diversity may provide additional sources of variation within a species that could be captured or created for crop improvement. It will be important to understand the sources of epigenetic variation and the stability of newly formed epigenetic variants over generations to fully use the potential of epigenetic variation to improve crops. The development and application of methods for widespread epigenome profiling and engineering may generate new avenues for using the full potential of epigenetics in crop improvement.

Indexed as

EpigenomicsPlant BreedingChromosomes, PlantCrops, AgriculturalDNA MethylationGenetic Variation

Identifiers

PMID28669983

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.