ArticleNature protocols2025
Precise tracking of nanoparticles in plant roots.
Article in Nature protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tracking Nano- and Microplastics in Plants: Uptake Pathways, Tissue Distribution, and Analytical Strategies from Microscopy to Spectroscopy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Green synthesis of demethoxycurcumin-loaded chitosan nanoparticles for the management of potato late blight caused by Phytophthora infestans.International journal of biological macromolecules · 2025Article
- Systematic Comparison of Commercial Uranyl-Alternative Stains for Negative- and Positive-Staining Transmission Electron Microscopy of Organic Specimens.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Advances and Challenges in Tracking Interactions Between Plants and Metal-Based Nanoparticles.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Translocation of Foliar-Applied Nanoparticles: A Critical Review From a Plant Science Perspective.Physiologia plantarumReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the foremost challenges in nanobiotechnology is obtaining direct evidence of nanoparticles' absorption and internalization in plants. Although confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) or transmission electron microscopy (TEM) are currently the most commonly used tools to characterize nanoparticles in plants, subjectivity of researchers, incorrect sample handling, inevitable fluorescence leakage and limitations of imaging instruments lead to false positives and non-reproducibility of experimental results. This protocol provides an easy-to-operate dual-step method, combining CLSM for macroscopic tissue examination and TEM for cellular-level analysis, to effectively trace single particles in plant roots with accuracy and precision. In addition, we also provide detailed methods for processing plant materials before imaging, including cleaning, and staining, to maximize the accuracy and reliability of imaging. This protocol involves currently commonly used nanomaterial types, such as metal-based and doped carbon-based materials, and enables accurate localization of nanoparticles with different sizes at the cell level in Arabidopsis thaliana root samples either through contrast or element mapping analysis. It serves as a valuable reference and benchmark for scholars in plant science, chemistry and environmental studies to understand the interaction between plant roots and nanomaterials and to detect the distribution of nanomaterials in plants. Excluding plant culture time, the protocol can be completed in 4-5 d.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39237831What 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.