ReviewFrontiers in plant science2021
Overcoming the Challenges to Enhancing Experimental Plant Biology With Computational Modeling.
Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-driven multiscale virtual plant cell modeling: from molecular mechanisms to tissue functions.Planta · 2026Review
- Integration of crop modeling and sensing into molecular breeding for nutritional quality and stress tolerance.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025Review
- Advancing medicinal plant agriculture: integrating technology and precision agriculture for sustainability.PeerJ · 2025Review
- Development and applications of metabolic models in plant multi-omics research.Frontiers in plant science · 2024Review
- Transporter networks can serve plant cells as nutrient sensors and mimic transceptor-like behavior.iScience · 2022Article
- Specialty grand challenge in plant biophysics and modeling.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study of complex biological systems necessitates computational modeling approaches that are currently underutilized in plant biology. Many plant biologists have trouble identifying or adopting modeling methods to their research, particularly mechanistic mathematical modeling. Here we address challenges that limit the use of computational modeling methods, particularly mechanistic mathematical modeling. We divide computational modeling techniques into either pattern models (e.g., bioinformatics, machine learning, or morphology) or mechanistic mathematical models (e.g., biochemical reactions, biophysics, or population models), which both contribute to plant biology research at different scales to answer different research questions. We present arguments and recommendations for the increased adoption of modeling by plant biologists interested in incorporating more modeling into their research programs. As some researchers find math and quantitative methods to be an obstacle to modeling, we provide suggestions for easy-to-use tools for non-specialists and for collaboration with specialists. This may especially be the case for mechanistic mathematical modeling, and we spend some extra time discussing this. Through a more thorough appreciation and awareness of the power of different kinds of modeling in plant biology, we hope to facilitate interdisciplinary, transformative research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.