Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39874949›Full record

ArticleCell reports methods2025

A network-enabled pipeline for gene discovery and validation in non-model plant species.

Dae Kwan Ko, Federica Brandizzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell reports methods, 2025. 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
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  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.

Dae Kwan KoMSU-DOE Plant Research Lab, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA; Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA; Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Federica BrandizziMSU-DOE Plant Research Lab, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA; Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA; Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. Electronic address: fb@msu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying key regulators of important genes in non-model crop species is challenging due to limited multi-omics resources. To address this, we introduce the network-enabled gene discovery pipeline NEEDLE, a user-friendly tool that systematically generates coexpression gene network modules, measures gene connectivity, and establishes network hierarchy to pinpoint key transcriptional regulators from dynamic transcriptome datasets. After validating its accuracy with two independent datasets, we applied NEEDLE to identify transcription factors (TFs) regulating the expression of cellulose synthase-like F6 (CSLF6), a crucial cell wall biosynthetic gene, in Brachypodium and sorghum. Our analyses uncover regulators of CSLF6 and also shed light on the evolutionary conservation or divergence of gene regulatory elements among grass species. These results highlight NEEDLE's capability to provide biologically relevant TF predictions and demonstrate its value for non-model plant species with dynamic transcriptome datasets.

Indexed as

BrachypodiumGene Regulatory NetworksSorghumGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, PlantGenes, PlantGlucosyltransferasesPlant ProteinsTranscription FactorsTranscriptomeGlucosyltransferasesPlant ProteinsTranscription FactorsCP: PlantsCP: Systems biologycrop genomicsgene discoverygene regulatory networksnetwork modelingtranscriptional regulationtranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID39874949
PMCPMC11840947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.