Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37746125›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in fungal biology2023

Fungal biotechnology: From yesterday to tomorrow.

Mitchell G Roth, Nathaniel M Westrick, Thomas T Baldwin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in fungal biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Novel Basidiomycetous Alcohol Oxidase fromInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Harnessing Fungi Signaling in Living Composites.Global challenges (Hoboken, NJ) · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Revealing Hidden Genes inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  16. RSC advances · 2024
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Fungal taxonomy: A puzzle with many missing piecesBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2023
    Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Mitchell G RothDepartment of Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, United States.
Nathaniel M WestrickDepartment of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Thomas T BaldwinDepartment of Plant Pathology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fungi have been used to better the lives of everyday people and unravel the mysteries of higher eukaryotic organisms for decades. However, comparing progress and development stemming from fungal research to that of human, plant, and bacterial research, fungi remain largely understudied and underutilized. Recent commercial ventures have begun to gain popularity in society, providing a new surge of interest in fungi, mycelia, and potential new applications of these organisms to various aspects of research. Biotechnological advancements in fungal research cannot occur without intensive amounts of time, investments, and research tool development. In this review, we highlight past breakthroughs in fungal biotechnology, discuss requirements to advance fungal biotechnology even further, and touch on the horizon of new breakthroughs with the highest potential to positively impact both research and society.

Indexed as

biotechnologyfungigenesremediationsustainabilitytechnology

Identifiers

PMID37746125
PMCPMC10512358

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.