Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40636423›Full record

ArticlePlant biotechnology (Tokyo, Japan)2025

Model-based analysis of the circadian rhythm generation of bioluminescence reporter activity in duckweed.

Yu Horikawa, Emiri Watanabe, Shogo Ito, Tokitaka Oyama

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant biotechnology (Tokyo, Japan), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Yu HorikawaDepartment of Botany, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University.
Emiri WatanabeDepartment of Complexity Science and Engineering, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo.
Shogo ItoDepartment of Botany, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University.
Tokitaka OyamaDepartment of Botany, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bioluminescence monitoring techniques are widely used to study the gene expression dynamics in living plants. Monitoring the bioluminescence from a luciferase gene under the control of a circadian promoter is indispensable for examining plant circadian systems. The bioluminescence monitoring technique was successfully applied to physiological studies of circadian rhythms in duckweed plants. It has been reported that a luciferase gene under a constitutive promoter also exhibits a bioluminescent circadian rhythm in duckweed. However, the mechanisms underlying rhythm generation remain unknown. In this study, we performed a model-based analysis to evaluate the machinery that generates the bioluminescence rhythm. We hypothesized the rhythmic factor of three aspects regarding the bioluminescence intensities of luciferase in cells: luminescence efficiency, production rate, and degradation rate. Theoretically, if the latter two are involved in rhythm generation, the difference in luciferase stability affects the amplitude and phase relations of the bioluminescence rhythm. Luciferase stability is irrelevant to these rhythm properties if only the luminescence efficiency is involved. First, we simulated the bioluminescence rhythms of two luciferases with different stabilities associated with each of three rhythmic factors. Luciferase stability was set based on the reported values for Emerald-luciferase and Emerald-luciferase-PEST. We then experimentally examined the bioluminescence rhythms of reporters of these luciferases driven by the

Indexed as

bioluminescencecircadian rhythmduckweedluciferasePEST sequence

Identifiers

PMID40636423
PMCPMC12235419

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.