Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29940855›Full record

ArticleBMC plant biology2018

Comparative analysis of binding patterns of MADS-domain proteins in Arabidopsis thaliana.

Niels Aerts, Suzanne de Bruijn, Hilda van Mourik, Gerco C Angenent, Aalt D J van Dijk

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC plant biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Genome-Wide Investigation ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Floral Development onPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Cracking the Floral Quartet Code: How Do Multimers of MIKCInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Floral Homeotic Factors: A Question of Specificity.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Niels AertsBioscience, Wageningen UR, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Suzanne de BruijnBioscience, Wageningen UR, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Hilda van MourikBioscience, Wageningen UR, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Gerco C AngenentBioscience, Wageningen UR, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Aalt D J van DijkBioscience, Wageningen UR, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, Wageningen, The Netherlands. aaltjan.vandijk@wur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8872-5123
Wageningen University & Research · NLUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCorrect flower formation requires highly specific temporal and spatial regulation of gene expression. In Arabidopsis thaliana the majority of the master regulators that determine flower organ identity belong to the MADS-domain transcription factor family. The canonical DNA binding motif for this transcription factor family is the CArG-box, which has the consensus CC(A/T)

resultsEight publicly available ChIP-seq datasets of MADS-domain proteins that regulate the floral transition and flower formation were analyzed. Surprisingly, the preferred DNA binding motif of each protein was a CArG-box with an NAA extension. Furthermore, motifs of other transcription factors were found in the vicinity of binding sites of MADS-domain transcription factors, suggesting that interaction of MADS-domain proteins with other transcription factors is important for target gene regulation. Finally, conservation of CArG-boxes between Arabidopsis ecotypes was assessed to obtain information about their evolutionary importance. CArG-boxes that fully matched the consensus were more conserved than other CArG-boxes, suggesting that the perfect CArG-box is evolutionary more important than other CArG-box variants.

conclusionOur analysis provides detailed insight into MADS-domain protein binding patterns. The results underline the importance of an extended version of the CArG-box and provide a first view on evolutionary conservation of MADS-domain protein binding sites in Arabidopsis ecotypes.

Indexed as

ArabidopsisArabidopsis ProteinsBinding SitesConserved SequenceFlowersMADS Domain ProteinsOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisProtein BindingTranscription FactorsArabidopsis ProteinsMADS Domain ProteinsTranscription FactorsCArG-boxChIP-seqMADS-domain proteinsSequence conservationTranscription factor binding specificity

Identifiers

PMID29940855
PMCPMC6019531
OpenAlexW2809153510

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.