ArticleBMC biology2025
A species-wide inventory of receptor-like kinases in Arabidopsis thaliana.
Article in BMC biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phosphorylation networks as regulatory hubs in plant stress signaling: kinase dynamics, crosstalk, and network plasticity.Plant cell reports · 2026Review
- Comparative proteomics reveals protein signatures shared between and unique to bona fide plant EVs and other plant-derived vesicles.Plant physiology · 2026Article
- Phosphovariants of the canonical heterotrimeric Gα protein, GPA1, differentially affect G protein activity and Arabidopsis development.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Genetic Diversity, Predictive Protein Structures, and Interaction Networks of Cysteine-Rich Receptor-Like Kinases inComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Correction: A species-wide inventory of receptor-like kinases in Arabidopsis thaliana.BMC biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe receptor-like kinases (RLKs) are the largest family of proteins in plants. Characterized members play critical roles in diverse processes from growth to immunity, and yet the majority do not have a known function. Assigning function to RLKs poses a significant challenge due to the specificity of ligand recognition and because of the often pleiotropic or redundant functions RLKs possess. These problems inhibit the important work of identifying stress-related receptors that may be targets for crop improvement. Identification of stress-related evolutionary signatures can provide a way to expedite the discovery of candidate receptors. Pan-genome analysis can be used to compare naturally occurring variants within a species to identify evolutionary signatures that may otherwise be hidden by using only a single ecotype.
resultsUsing 146 ecotypes of Arabidopsis, we generated a pan-RLKome to investigate species-wide natural diversity and identify structural variation and other patterns indicative of stress adaptation. We discovered significant presence/absence variation across a subset of RLKs, most of which occurred in specific subclades nested within receptor subfamilies. These same subclades tended to have arisen through proximal or tandem duplication, both of which are common mechanisms during the expansion of stress-related genes. We also identified strong positive selection across many gene subfamilies and a bias of positive selection in the extracellular domains of receptors. This suggests escape from adaptive conflict within the extracellular domain may have played a large role in the evolution and adaptation of the RLKs.
conclusionTaken together, this work represents an excellent tool for the comparative study of RLKs and has identified lineages and subclades within RLK subfamilies with the hallmarks of involvement in stress adaptation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.