Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41749243›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2026

Comparative evaluation of physical methods for extracting leaf trichomes.

Satinderpal Kaur, Devi Balakrishnan, Rupesh Kariyat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Satinderpal Kaur *Department of Entomology, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.
Devi Balakrishnan *Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Rupesh KariyatDepartment of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA. rkariyat@uark.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Trichomes are hairlike protuberances in plants that deter herbivores using both physical and chemical means, with pre- and post-ingestive effects. In addition, trichomes also serve as a protective layer, reducing transpiration loss, thereby improving abiotic stress tolerance. A common method for assessing the role of trichomes in defense is to extract and infuse trichomes into the artificial diet, and then examine the feeding, growth, and developmental parameters of herbivores. Although methods such as brushing, using dry ice, and shaving with a razor, have been commonly used, there is no consensus on the best and most efficient method for trichome extraction. In the current study, to optimize the ideal method to extract trichomes, we tested three common methods with some modifications, such as flash freezing and brushing, shaving using a scalpel, and vortexing followed by freezing. Here, we used representative species from both eudicots and monocots with significant trichome diversity. For eudicots, we selected three cultivated plant species: tomato, sunflower, and Mexican squash, and two wild plant species: wild sunflower and wild squash, and for monocots, we used the model plant, rice. The efficiency of each method was examined using a combination of light and scanning electron microscopy. The results suggest that freezing followed by brushing is the most efficient and ideal method for extracting trichomes and can be recommended for eudicots. However, none of the evaluated methods were effective for the monocot rice.

Indexed as

BrushingEudicotMonocotPlant tissueVortexing

Identifiers

PMID41749243
PMCPMC13041295

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.