Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40697154›Full record

ReviewThe Plant cell2025

Best practices in plant fluorescence imaging and reporting: A primer.

Kirk J Czymmek, Yoselin Benitez-Alfonso, Tessa Burch-Smith, Luigi F Di Costanzo, Georgia Drakakaki, Michelle Facette, Daniel Kierzkowski, Anastasiya Klebanovych, Ivan Radin, Suruchi Roychoudhry and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Plant cell, 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. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

Kirk J CzymmekAdvanced Bioimaging Laboratory, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, MO 63132, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5471-7395
Yoselin Benitez-AlfonsoCentre for Plant Sciences, School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9779-0413
Tessa Burch-SmithDonald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, MO 63132, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5994-4343
Luigi F Di CostanzoDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Portici 80055, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4795-2573
Georgia DrakakakiDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3949-8657
Michelle FacetteDepartment of Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6214-9359
Daniel KierzkowskiDépartement de Sciences Biologiques, Institut de Recherche en Biologie Végétale, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC H1X 2B2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1947-8691
Anastasiya KlebanovychAdvanced Bioimaging Laboratory, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, MO 63132, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0151-050X
Ivan RadinDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5711-2861
Suruchi RoychoudhryCentre for Plant Sciences, School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9736-0269
Heather E McFarlaneDepartment of Cell and Systems Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3B2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5569-5151

Funding

Zeiss LSM 880 with Fast Mode Airyscan for the MCB LM Imaging FacilityS10OD026702 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI PADDY, MICHAEL R · 2019 to 2019
$600k
Advanced Bioimaging Laboratory RRID:SCR_018951Canada Foundation for InnovationCanada Research ChairsDanforth Plant Science CenterNational Science Foundation Research Coordination Network Award # 2052590Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada 2020-05959Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2018-04897NIH Shared Instrumentation S10OD026702NSF Major Research Instrumentation DBI-1337680NSF Major Research Instrumentation DBI-2018962Ontario Early Researcher Award ER21-16-256Ontario Research Foundation 38721UC Davis MCB Light Microscopy Core Facility
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microscopy is a fundamental approach for plant cell and developmental biology as well as an essential tool for mechanistic studies in plant research. However, setting up a new microscopy-based experiment can be challenging, especially for beginner users, when implementing new imaging workflows or when working in an imaging facility where staff may not have extensive experience with plant samples. The basic principles of optics, chemistry, imaging, and data handling are shared among all cell types. However, unique challenges are faced when imaging plant specimens due to their waxy cuticles, strong/broad spectrum autofluorescence, recalcitrant cell walls, and air spaces that impede fixation or live imaging, impacting sample preparation and image quality. As expert plant microscopists, we share our collective experience on best practices to improve the quality of published microscopy results and promote transparency, reproducibility, and data reuse for meta-analyses. We offer plant-specific advice and examples for microscope users at all stages of fluorescence microscopy workflows, from experimental design through sample preparation, image acquisition, processing, and analyses, to image display and methods reporting in manuscripts. We also present standards for methods reporting that will be valuable to all users and offer tools to improve reproducibility and data sharing.

Indexed as

Optical ImagingPlantsImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMicroscopy, FluorescenceReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID40697154
PMCPMC12284399

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.