Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28697754›Full record

ReviewBMC biology2017

Life behind the wall: sensing mechanical cues in plants.

Olivier Hamant, Elizabeth S Haswell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing 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

68 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Expression responses ofPlant signaling & behavior · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Abiotic Stresses in Plants: From Molecules to Environment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Cell wall dynamics: novel tools and research questions.Journal of experimental botany · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 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.

Olivier HamantLaboratoire Reproduction et Développement des Plantes, University Lyon, ENS de Lyon, UCB Lyon 1, CNRS, INRA, F-69342, Lyon, France. olivier.hamant@ens-lyon.fr.
Elizabeth S HaswellDepartment of Biology, Washington University in Saint Louis, Mailbox 1137, Saint Louis, MO, 63130, USA. ehaswell@wustl.edu.

Funding

Biophysical, Structural and Functional Analysis of Mechanosensitive ChannelsR01GM084211 · NIGMS · CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI HASWELL, ELIZABETH S, PHILLIPS, ROB · 2008 to 2016
$3.6M
European Research Council 615739Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM084211
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is increasing evidence that all cells sense mechanical forces in order to perform their functions. In animals, mechanotransduction has been studied during the establishment of cell polarity, fate, and division in single cells, and increasingly is studied in the context of a multicellular tissue. What about plant systems? Our goal in this review is to summarize what is known about the perception of mechanical cues in plants, and to provide a brief comparison with animals.

Indexed as

Mechanotransduction, CellularPlant Physiological PhenomenaCues

Identifiers

PMID28697754
PMCPMC5505048

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.