Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31719834›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2019

Two-step derivatization for determination of sugar phosphates in plants by combined reversed phase chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry.

Umut Rende, Totte Niittylä, Thomas Moritz

Open access · goldAbstract 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. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. HIF1α mediates circadian regulation of skeletal muscle metabolism and substrate preference in response to time-of-day exercise.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Umut Rende1Department of Forest Genetics and Plant Physiology, Umeå Plant Science Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83 Umeå, Sweden.
Totte Niittylä1Department of Forest Genetics and Plant Physiology, Umeå Plant Science Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83 Umeå, Sweden.
Thomas Moritz1Department of Forest Genetics and Plant Physiology, Umeå Plant Science Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83 Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4258-3190
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences · SEUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSugar phosphates are important intermediates of central carbon metabolism in biological systems, with roles in glycolysis, the pentose-phosphate pathway, tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle, and many other biosynthesis pathways. Understanding central carbon metabolism requires a simple, robust and comprehensive analytical method. However, sugar phosphates are notoriously difficult to analyze by traditional reversed phase liquid chromatography.

resultsHere, we show a two-step derivatization of sugar phosphates by methoxylamine and propionic acid anhydride after chloroform/methanol (3:7) extraction from

conclusionThe results show the reliability of combined reversed phase liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for sugar phosphate analysis and demonstrate the presence of two unknown sugar phosphates in

Indexed as

ExtractionQqQ-MSQ-TOFSugar phosphatesTwo-step derivatizationUHPLC–ESI–MS

Identifiers

PMID31719834
PMCPMC6836659
OpenAlexW2989242119

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.