Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32619226›Full record

SynthesisJournal of experimental botany2020

Shades of green: untying the knots of green photoperception.

Martin W Battle, Franco Vegliani, Matthew A Jones

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of experimental botany, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Exploring the potential of EuRSC advances · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 1 country.

Martin W BattleSchool of Life Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Franco VeglianiInstitute of Molecular, Cell, and Systems Biology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Matthew A JonesInstitute of Molecular, Cell, and Systems Biology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
University of Glasgow · GBUniversity of Essex · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/S005404/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of economical LED technology has enabled the application of different light qualities and quantities to control plant growth. Although we have a comprehensive understanding of plants' perception of red and blue light, the lack of a dedicated green light sensor has frustrated our utilization of intermediate wavelengths, with many contradictory reports in the literature. We discuss the contribution of red and blue photoreceptors to green light perception and highlight how green light can be used to improve crop quality. Importantly, our meta-analysis demonstrates that green light perception should instead be considered as a combination of distinct 'green' and 'yellow' light-induced responses. This distinction will enable clearer interpretation of plants' behaviour in response to green light as we seek to optimize plant growth and nutritional quality in horticultural contexts.

Indexed as

Plant DevelopmentGreen lighthorticultureLEDphotobiologyphotoperceptionphotoreceptor

Identifiers

PMID32619226
PMCPMC7541914
OpenAlexW3038438462

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.