Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33873678›Full record

ReviewThe New phytologist2003

Models of shoot apical meristem function.

Fiona Tooke, Nick Battey

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The New phytologist, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Single-Base Methylome Analysis of Sweet Cherry (International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The evolving concept of the meristem.Plant molecular biology · 2006
    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.

Fiona TookeDepartment of Plant Sciences, Cambridge University, Cambridge, CB2 3EA, UK; School of Plant Sciences, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AS, UK.
Nick BatteyDepartment of Plant Sciences, Cambridge University, Cambridge, CB2 3EA, UK; School of Plant Sciences, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AS, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this review we describe how concepts of shoot apical meristem function have developed over time. The role of the scientist is emphasized, as proposer, receiver and evaluator of ideas about the shoot apical meristem. Models have become increasingly popular over the last 250 years, and we consider their role. They provide valuable grounding for the development of hypotheses, but in addition they have a strong human element and their uptake relies on various degrees of persuasion. The most influential models are probably those that most data support, consolidating them as an insight into reality; but they also work by altering how we see meristems, re-directing us to influence the data we collect and the questions we consider meaningful. Contents Summary 37 I. Introduction 37 II. How things began 38 III. Cytology 39 IV. Morphology 41 V. Developmental genetics 44 VI. Conclusions 49 Acknowledgements 50 References 50.

Indexed as

developmental genetics.flower initiationgrowthleaf initiationmodelsshoot apical meristem

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.