Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40269551›Full record

ReviewThe New phytologist2025

Computational modeling of plant root development: the art and the science.

Kirsten H Ten Tusscher

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The New phytologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. The Promise of Synthetic Biology for Redesigning Plant Architecture.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    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

1 author.

Kirsten H Ten TusscherExperimental and Computational Plant Development, IEB, Department of Biology, Utrecht University, Winthontlaan 30C, 3526 KV, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1945-7858

Funding

Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research VI.C.202.011 12268
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant root development, like any developmental process, arises from the interplay between processes like gene expression, cell-cell signaling, cell growth and division, and tissue mechanics, which unfold over a wide range of temporal and spatial scales. Computational models are uniquely suited to integrate these different processes and spatio-temporal scales to investigate how their interplay determines developmental outcomes and have become part of mainstream plant developmental research. Still, for non-modeling experts, it often remains unclear how models are built, why a particular modeling approach was chosen, and how to interpret and value model outcomes. This review attempts to explain the science behind the art of model building, illustrating the simplifications that are often made to keep models simple to understand and when these are and are not justified. Similarly, it discusses when it is safe to ignore certain processes like growth or tissue mechanics and when it is not. Additionally, this review discusses a range of major breakthrough modeling articles. Their approaches are linked to classical concepts and models in developmental biology like the French flag positional information gradient of Lewis Wolpert and the repetitive patterning mechanism proposed by Turing, in addition to highlighting the lessons they taught us on plant root development.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, BiologicalPlant DevelopmentPlant Rootscell types as attractorsclock‐and‐wavefrontcomputational modelingmorphogen gradientnetwork motifsplant root developmentreflux‐and‐growthTuring patterns

Identifiers

PMID40269551
PMCPMC12095987

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.