Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31333712›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2019

A Novel Method for Identification and Quantification of Sulfated Flavonoids in Plants by Neutral Loss Scan Mass Spectrometry.

Niklas Kleinenkuhnen, Felix Büchel, Silke C Gerlich, Stanislav Kopriva, Sabine Metzger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Phytochemical Analysis of PlantMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Comprehensive Analysis of Sulfated Flavonoids inMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Sulfation pathways from red to green.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2019
    Review
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.

Niklas KleinenkuhnenMS-Platform, Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences, Botanical Institute (CEPLAS), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Felix BüchelMS-Platform, Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences, Botanical Institute (CEPLAS), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Silke C GerlichBotanical Institute and Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences (CEPLAS), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Stanislav KoprivaBotanical Institute and Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences (CEPLAS), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Sabine MetzgerMS-Platform, Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences, Botanical Institute (CEPLAS), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences · DEUniversity of Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sulfur is present in plants in a large range of essential primary metabolites, as well as in numerous natural products. Many of these secondary metabolites contain sulfur in the oxidized form of organic sulfate. However, except of glucosinolates, very little is known about other classes of such sulfated metabolites, mainly because of lack of specific and quantitative analytical methods. We developed an LC-MS method to analyze sulfated flavonoids, a group of sulfated secondary metabolites prominent, e.g., in plants of the genus

Indexed as

Flaveriamass spectrometrymethod developmentneutral loss scansulfated flavonoidssulfur metabolism

Identifiers

PMID31333712
PMCPMC6625178
OpenAlexW2949371070

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.