SynthesisInternational journal of molecular sciences2022
Antisense Transcription in Plants: A Systematic Review and an Update on cis-NATs of Sugarcane.
Synthesis 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 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long Noncoding RNAs as Emerging Regulators of Seed Development, Germination, and Senescence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- RNAi and genome editing of sugarcane: Progress and prospects.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2025Review
- Evolutionarily conserved 12-oxophytodienoate reductaseHorticulture research · 2024Article
- Genome-Wide Identification and Characterization of miRNAs and Natural Antisense Transcripts Show the Complexity of Gene Regulatory Networks for Secondary Metabolism inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Initially, natural antisense transcripts (NATs, natRNAs, or asRNAs) were considered repressors; however, their functions in gene regulation are diverse. Positive, negative, or neutral correlations to the cognate gene expression have been noted. Although the first studies were published about 50 years ago, there is still much to be investigated regarding antisense transcripts in plants. A systematic review of scientific publications available in the Web of Science databases was conducted to contextualize how the studying of antisense transcripts has been addressed. Studies were classified considering three categories: "Natural antisense" (208), artificial antisense used in "Genetic Engineering" (797), or "Natural antisense and Genetic Engineering"-related publications (96). A similar string was used for a systematic search in the NCBI Gene database. Of the 1132 antisense sequences found for plants, only 0.8% were cited in PubMed and had antisense information confirmed. This value was the lowest when compared to fungi (2.9%), bacteria (2.3%), and mice (54.1%). Finally, we present an update for the cis-NATs identified in
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.