Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32457784›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2020

Plants in the Light of Ionizing Radiation: What Have We Learned From Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Other "Hot" Places?

Timothy A Mousseau, Anders Pape Møller

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Multiannual Assessment of Quality ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Response ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. The effects of ionizing radiation on domestic dogs: a review of the atomic bomb testing era.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2021
    Review
  17. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Timothy A MousseauDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.
Anders Pape MøllerMinistry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.
Université Paris-Sud · FRUniversity of South Carolina · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perhaps the main factor determining success of space travel will be the ability to control effects of ionizing radiation for humans, but also for other living organisms. Manned space travel will require the cultivation of food plants under conditions of prolonged exposure to ionizing radiation. Although there is a significant literature concerning the effects of acute high dose rate exposures on plant genetics, growth, and development, much less is known concerning the effects of chronic low dose irradiation especially those related to the impacts of the high energy protons and heavy ions that are encountered in the space environment. Here, we make the argument that

Indexed as

ChernobylFukushimaionizing radiationmutationplants

Identifiers

PMID32457784
PMCPMC7227407
OpenAlexW3021418791

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.