Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36291572›Full record

ReviewBiomolecules2022

From

F Murilo Zerbini, Elliot W Kitajima

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomolecules, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

F Murilo ZerbiniDepartment of Plant Pathology, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, MG, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8617-0200
Elliot W KitajimaDepartment of Plant Pathology and Nematology, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba 13418-900, SP, Brazil.
Universidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Federal de Viçosa · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Viruses were discovered as agents of disease in the late 19th century, but it was not until the 1930s that the nature of these agents was elucidated. Nevertheless, as soon as viral diseases started to be recognized and cataloged, there were attempts to classify and name viruses. Although these early attempts failed to be adopted by the nascent virology community, they are evidence of the human compulsion to try to organize the natural world into well-defined categories. Different classification schemes were proposed during the 20th century, but again none were widely embraced by virologists. In 1966, with the creation of the International Committee on Nomenclature of Viruses (eventually renamed as the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses), a more organized effort led to an official taxonomy in which viruses were classified into families and genera. At present, a much better understanding of the evolutionary relationships among viruses has led to the establishment of a 15-rank taxonomy based primarily on these evolutionary relationships. This review of virus taxonomy will be centered on the tobacco mosaic virus (TMV), the agent of the disease studied by Dmitry Ivanovsky and the first virus to be recognized as such, which was often historically at the center of major advancements in virology during the 20th century.

Indexed as

Tobacco Mosaic VirusVirusesHumansIvanovskyTMVtobacco mosaic virusvirus taxonomy

Identifiers

PMID36291572
PMCPMC9599303
OpenAlexW4297146214

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.