ReviewPlanta2025
Statoliths function in gravity perception in plants: yes, no, yes!
Review in Planta, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aspects of plant intelligence (ii).Plant signaling & behavior · 2026Review
- Planta Centennial editorial.Planta · 2026Article
- Physiological and transcriptomic assessment of Arabidopsis identifies two distinct gravity signaling systems.Plant physiology · 2026Article
- Response of plant roots to mechanical environmental stimuli.Horticulture research · 2026Article
- Actin depolymerization by Latrunculin B can either suppress or promote root gravitropism, depending on the developmental stages in Arabidopsis.Plant signaling & behavior · 2025Article
- Upregulation of an IAA-GlucosyltransferasePlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Distinctive Traits of European Mistletoe (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MAIN
conclusionThe starch-statolith theory was established science for a century when the existence of gravitropic, starchless mutants questioned its premise. However, detailed kinetic studies support a statolith-based mechanism for graviperception. Gravitropism is the directed growth of plants in response to gravity, and the starch-statolith hypothesis has had a consensus among scientists as the accepted model for gravity perception. However, in the late 1980s, with the isolation of a starchless mutant (lacking phosphoglucomutase, pgm) of Arabidopsis thaliana that was gravitropic, a statolith-based hypothesis for graviperception was questioned. Two groups studied the physiology and gravitropism kinetics of this pgm mutant, and these papers were published side-by-side in Planta. Based on the observation that the starchless mutant was responsive to gravity, Tim Caspar and colleagues (Caspar and Pickard, Planta 177:185-197, 1989) suggested that their results negated the starch-statolith hypothesis. In contrast, John Z. Kiss (Kiss et al., Planta 177:198-206, 1989) and colleagues turned the argument around 180 degrees and concluded that since a full complement of starch is required for full gravitropic sensitivity, in fact, their pgm studies provided strong support for a statolith-based model for gravity perception. Kiss and coworkers also provided evidence that the starchless plastids were relatively dense and proposed that these organelles function as statoliths in the pgm mutant plants. These two publications stimulated novel approaches (e.g., magnetophoresis, optical tweezers, spaceflight experiments, and laser ablation) to the study of gravity perception in plants. The controversy regarding the starch-statolith hypothesis remained for about a decade or so, but the current consensus supports a statolith-based model for graviperception in plants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39869172What 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.