Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34354723›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2021

Overcoming the Challenges to Enhancing Experimental Plant Biology With Computational Modeling.

Renee Dale, Scott Oswald, Amogh Jalihal, Mary-Francis LaPorte, Daniel M Fletcher, Allen Hubbard, Shin-Han Shiu, Andrew David Lyle Nelson, Alexander Bucksch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Integration of crop modeling and sensing into molecular breeding for nutritional quality and stress tolerance.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

9 authors.

Renee DaleDonald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Scott OswaldWarnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources and Institute of Bioinformatics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States.
Amogh JalihalDepartment of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Mary-Francis LaPorteDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Daniel M FletcherBioengineering Sciences Research Group, Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Allen HubbardDonald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Shin-Han ShiuDepartment of Plant Biology and Department of Computational Mathematics, Science, and Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.
Andrew David Lyle NelsonBoyce-Thompson Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
Alexander BuckschWarnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources and Institute of Bioinformatics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

bioinformaticscollaborationcomputational modelingexperimental designmathematical modeling

Identifiers

PMID34354723
PMCPMC8329482

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.