ArticlePlant signaling & behavior2018
How do we know that plants listen: Advancements and limitations of transcriptomic profiling for the identification of sound-specific biomarkers in tomato.
Article in Plant signaling & behavior, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of sound vibrations on plant holobionts: physiological pathways linking root function and rhizospheric microbial interactions.Plant signaling & behavior · 2026Review
- Plant Health and Sound Vibration: Analyzing Implications of the Microbiome in Grape Wine Leaves.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Cognitive Disposition to Wine Consumption: How the Brain Is Wired to Select the Perfect Bottle With a Novel Musical Twist.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sound vibration has been recently identified as an important physical trigger to elicit plant responses. Naturally occurring sound waves modulate diverse aspects of plant physiology, such as root growth, stress responses, and seed germination. However, it has been debated whether plants perceive artificially generated sound vibration and exhibit similar phenotypic changes to those exhibited after perception of natural sound waves. Recently, analysis of RNA-Seq and microRNA-Seq using tomato fruits treated with optimized sound waves to attenuate fruit ripening revealed sound-specific microRNAs, which could be used as sound-specific biomarkers in tomato. These data provide solid molecular evidence of sound perception in plants. Despite these results, there are obvious limitations of biomarkers' specificity and selectivity that need be addressed to facilitate the application of sound treatment in agriculture. Here, the pros and cons of sequencing technologies used to identify sound-associated molecules suggest recommendations for the effective identification of biomarkers responsive to sound treatment in plants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.