ReviewProtoplasma2026
Why is this journal called Protoplasma? A history of protoplasm theory and the divisions in cell biology before 1926.
Review in Protoplasma, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
When the journal Protoplasma was founded 100 years ago in 1926, scientists used two different concepts to describe what we would now consider one and the same object: the cell for the membrane-bound structural unit of life, and protoplasm for the living fluid mass or body of the cell. The flourishing of both concepts together dates back to the 1850s, when biologists revised the original cell theory of 1838/39 while also unifying the definition of the cell across plant and animal kingdoms. However, at the beginning of the 20th century a methodological debate over fixation and staining artifacts divided cell researchers in two polarized groups. Cytologists preferred continuing descriptive research on fixed images of chromosomes and organelles, while general physiologists or "protoplasmologists" sought to develop new physical chemical experiments to study living, uninjured protoplasts. This historical essay shows how the journal Protoplasma emerged from one side of these longer debates over the definition of cellular life, and places the origins of the journal in the context of a changing disciplinary landscape of the life sciences in the first half of the 20th century. It also argues that cross-kingdom research in cell biology has been a foundational source of innovation in cell theory's longer history.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41661269What 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.