ArticlePlanta2025
A model for soybean inflorescence architecture based on morphological and gene expression analysis.
Article in Planta, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
MAIN
conclusionSoybean inflorescence architecture is controversial and regulation of its development unresolved. Our study provides an integral view of its architecture and critical information on the gene network controlling its development. Inflorescence architecture is a highly important trait depending on the arrangement and number of flowers in the inflorescence stem. It strongly contributes to plant morphological diversity, and since it determines the number of flowers and fruits, it has strong potential to influence crop yield. Soybean (Glycine max) is a highly relevant grain crop. However, despite many studies involving soybean inflorescence, no clear descriptions of its architecture are available, and the information on this question is controversial. In addition, though a model for the gene network controlling inflorescence meristem identity is established for other legumes, such as pea (Pisum sativum) or Medicago truncatula, regulation of soybean inflorescence development is not resolved, with the nature of the gene specifying I2 meristem identity not clear yet. Here, we use macroscopic and microscopic observation to analyze soybean inflorescence architecture and RNA in situ hybridization to study the expression of the meristem genes DT1, DT2 and GmAP1a, to analyze the control of soybean inflorescence development. Our data demonstrate that, as pea and Medicago, soybean has a compound inflorescence, with flowers formed in secondary inflorescences (I2), and suggest that it is a compound raceme. Our expression study supports that DT1 and AP1 specify the identity of I1 and floral meristems, respectively. Importantly, the specific expression of Dt2 in I2 meristems strongly indicates I2 meristem identity specification by Dt2 and conservation of the inflorescence gene regulatory network with other legumes. Our study fills an important gap, providing an integral view of soybean inflorescence architecture and novel critical information on the gene network that controls its development.
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.