Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30858871›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2019

Comparison of efficiency and time to regeneration of

Li Wen, Yuanling Chen, Elise Schnabel, Ashley Crook, Julia Frugoli

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Frontiers in plant science · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. An Optimized Transformation System and Functional Test ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  7. An Improved Protocol forInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Li Wen1Department of Genetics and Biochemistry, Clemson University, Clemson, USA.
Yuanling Chen1Department of Genetics and Biochemistry, Clemson University, Clemson, USA.
Elise Schnabel1Department of Genetics and Biochemistry, Clemson University, Clemson, USA.
Ashley Crook1Department of Genetics and Biochemistry, Clemson University, Clemson, USA.
Julia Frugoli1Department of Genetics and Biochemistry, Clemson University, Clemson, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1642-5911

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTissue culture transformation of plants has an element of art to it, with protocols passed on between labs but often not directly compared. As

resultsThe

conclusionsWhile no A17 transgenic plants were obtained, transgenic plantlets from the R108 ecotype were produced in as little as 4 months with a comparison of the two widely studied ecotypes under a single set of conditions. While the protocols tested gave similar results in percentage of transformed plants produced, considerations of labor and time to transgenics that vary between the root explant protocols tested were discovered. These considerations may influence which protocol to choose for introducing a single transgene versus creating lines with multiple mutations utilizing a CRISPR/Cas9 construct.

Indexed as

A17crn MutantCytokinin reporterMedicago truncatulaR108Root explantsTissue culture regeneration

Identifiers

PMID30858871
PMCPMC6394069

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.