Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35806046›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2022

Plant Responses to Herbivory, Wounding, and Infection.

Salma Mostafa, Yun Wang, Wen Zeng, Biao Jin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing 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

64 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Salma MostafaCollege of Horticulture and Plant Protection, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225012, China.
Yun WangCollege of Horticulture and Plant Protection, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225012, China.
Wen ZengCollege of Horticulture and Plant Protection, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225012, China.
Biao JinCollege of Horticulture and Plant Protection, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225012, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7330-334X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants have various self-defense mechanisms against biotic attacks, involving both physical and chemical barriers. Physical barriers include spines, trichomes, and cuticle layers, whereas chemical barriers include secondary metabolites (SMs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Complex interactions between plants and herbivores occur. Plant responses to insect herbivory begin with the perception of physical stimuli, chemical compounds (orally secreted by insects and herbivore-induced VOCs) during feeding. Plant cell membranes then generate ion fluxes that create differences in plasma membrane potential (

Indexed as

HerbivoryVolatile Organic CompoundsAnimalsEpigenesis, GeneticInsectaPlant Growth RegulatorsPlantsPlant Growth RegulatorsVolatile Organic Compoundsairborne signalingepigenetic regulationintracellular signalingphysical barrierplant–herbivore interactionsecondary metabolitesignal transduction

Identifiers

PMID35806046
PMCPMC9266417

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.