Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37962515›Full record

ReviewJournal of experimental botany2024

Rho of Plants patterning: linking mathematical models and molecular diversity.

Eva E Deinum, Bas Jacobs

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of experimental botany, 2024. 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
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  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.

Eva E DeinumMathematical and Statistical Methods (Biometris), Plant Science Group, Wageningen University, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8564-200X
Bas JacobsMathematical and Statistical Methods (Biometris), Plant Science Group, Wageningen University, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3560-8086

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ROPs (Rho of Plants) are plant specific small GTPases involved in many membrane patterning processes and play important roles in the establishment and communication of cell polarity. These small GTPases can produce a wide variety of patterns, ranging from a single cluster in tip-growing root hairs and pollen tubes to an oriented stripe pattern controlling protoxylem cell wall deposition. For an understanding of what controls these various patterns, models are indispensable. Consequently, many modelling studies on small GTPase patterning exist, often focusing on yeast or animal cells. Multiple patterns occurring in plants, however, require the stable co-existence of multiple active ROP clusters, which does not occur with the most common yeast/animal models. The possibility of such patterns critically depends on the precise model formulation. Additionally, different small GTPases are usually treated interchangeably in models, even though plants possess two types of ROPs with distinct molecular properties, one of which is unique to plants. Furthermore, the shape and even the type of ROP patterns may be affected by the cortical cytoskeleton, and cortex composition and anisotropy differ dramatically between plants and animals. Here, we review insights into ROP patterning from modelling efforts across kingdoms, as well as some outstanding questions arising from these models and recent experimental findings.

Indexed as

Monomeric GTP-Binding ProteinsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeAnimalsModels, TheoreticalPlantsMonomeric GTP-Binding ProteinsCluster coexistencecytoskeletonlipid nanodomainsmathematical modelspattern formationRho of Plants (ROP)type-I/II ROPs

Identifiers

PMID37962515
PMCPMC10901209
OpenAlexW4388667180

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.