Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30108140›Full record

ReviewPlant physiology2018

Synchrotron-Based X-Ray Fluorescence Microscopy as a Technique for Imaging of Elements in Plants.

Peter M Kopittke, Tracy Punshon, David J Paterson, Ryan V Tappero, Peng Wang, F Pax C Blamey, Antony van der Ent, Enzo Lombi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plant physiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing 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

52 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Mapping Labile FeMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

8 authors.

Peter M KopittkeUniversity of Queensland, School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, St. Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4948-1880
Tracy PunshonDartmouth College, Department of Biological Sciences, Life Science Center, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755.
David J PatersonAustralian Synchrotron, Clayton, Victoria 3168, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0409-9012
Ryan V TapperoBrookhaven National Laboratory, Photon Sciences Division, Upton, New York 11973.ORCID 0000-0002-3560-2461
Peng WangNanjing Agricultural University, College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Nanjing 210095, China p.wang3@njau.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0001-8622-8767
F Pax C BlameyUniversity of Queensland, School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, St. Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6492-1939
Antony van der EntUniversity of Queensland, Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, Sustainable Minerals Institute, St. Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia.
Enzo LombiUniversity of South Australia, Future Industries Institute, Mawson Lakes, South Australia 5095, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the distribution of elements within plant tissues is important across a range of fields in plant science. In this review, we examine synchrotron-based x-ray fluorescence microscopy (XFM) as an elemental imaging technique in plant sciences, considering both its historical and current uses as well as discussing emerging approaches. XFM offers several unique capabilities of interest to plant scientists, including in vivo analyses at room temperature and pressure, good detection limits (approximately 1-100 mg kg

Indexed as

Microscopy, FluorescencePlantsSynchrotronsX-Rays

Identifiers

PMID30108140
PMCPMC6181034

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.