Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34292403›Full record

ReviewProtoplasma2022

Forever young: stem cell and plant regeneration one century after Haberlandt 1921.

Ulrich Kutschera, Peter M Ray

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Protoplasma, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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.

Ulrich KutscheraI-Cultiver, Inc., Treasure Island, San Francisco, CA, 94130, USA. kutscherau@gmail.com.
Peter M RayDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. pray@stanford.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants are characterized by a post-embryonic mode of organ development, which results in a need for these photoautotrophic organisms to regenerate lost parts in the course of their life cycle. This capacity depends on the presence of "pluripotent stem cells," which are part of the meristems within the plant body. One hundred years ago, the botanist Gottlieb Haberlandt (1854-1945) published experiments showing wounding-induced callus formation, which led ultimately to plant regeneration in tissue culture and thence to the techniques of "plant biotechnology," with practical applications for mankind. Here, we recount Haberlandt's discovery within the context of his long research life and his most influential book Physiologische Pflanzenanatomie. In the second part, we describe and analyze a plant tissue-culture regeneration system using sterile, dark-grown sunflower (Helianthus annuus) seedlings as experimental material. We document that excised hook segments, which contain a "stem cell niche," can regenerate entire miniature H. annuus-plantlets that, raised in a light/dark regime, develop flowers. Finally, we discuss molecular data relevant to plant regeneration with reference to phytohormones and conclude that, one century after Haberlandt, 1921, the exact biochemical/genetic mechanisms responsible for the capability of stem cells to remain "forever young" are, although already complex, really just beginning to become known.

Indexed as

HelianthusPlantsPlant Growth RegulatorsSeedlingsStem CellsPlant Growth RegulatorsAuxinHaberlandtPhytohormonesPlant regenerationStem cells

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.