ArticlePloS one2022
Damaged Dickinsonia specimens provide clues to Ediacaran vendobiont biology.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently reported specimens of the enigmatic Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia from Russia show damage and repair that provides evidence of how they grew, and of their biological affinities. Marginal and terminal areas of wilting deformation are necrotic zones separating regenerated growth, sometimes on two divergent axes, rather than a single axis. Necrotic zones of damage to Dickinsonia are not a thick scar or callus, like a wound or amputation. Nor are they smooth transitions to a regenerated tail or arm. The wilted necrotic zone is most like damage by freezing, salt, or sunburn of leaves and lichens, compatible with evidence of terrestrial habitat from associated frigid and gypsic paleosols. Dickinsonia did not regrow by postembryonic addition of modules from a subterminal or patterned growth zone as in earthworms, myriapods, trilobites, crustaceans, and lizards. Rather Dickinsonia postembryonic regrowth from sublethal damage was from microscopic apical and lateral meristems, as in plants and lichens. Considered as fungal, Dickinsonia, and perhaps others of Class Vendobionta, were more likely Glomeromycota or Mucoromycotina, rather than Ascomycota or Basidiomycota.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.