ReviewFrontiers in genome editing2022
Imaging tools for plant nanobiotechnology.
Review in Frontiers in genome editing, 2022. 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, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Engineered nanoparticles at the redox interface: Rewiring ROS signaling and stress responses in plants.Journal of integrative plant biology · 2026Review
- Unlocking the black box: multimodal imaging and quantitative analysis of plant vesicular trafficking.Advanced biotechnology · 2026Review
- Influence of the Hybrid Compound La(NOPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Precise tracking of nanoparticles in plant roots.Nature protocols · 2025Article
- Bridging the gap: integrating plant physiology and soil science in nanotechnology and biochar research for sustainable agriculture.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Advances and Challenges in Tracking Interactions Between Plants and Metal-Based Nanoparticles.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The successful application of nanobiotechnology in biomedicine has greatly changed the traditional way of diagnosis and treating of disease, and is promising for revolutionizing the traditional plant nanobiotechnology. Over the past few years, nanobiotechnology has increasingly expanded into plant research area. Nanomaterials can be designed as vectors for targeted delivery and controlled release of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, nucleotides, proteins, etc. Interestingly, nanomaterials with unique physical and chemical properties can directly affect plant growth and development; improve plant resistance to disease and stress; design as sensors in plant biology; and even be used for plant genetic engineering. Similarly, there have been concerns about the potential biological toxicity of nanomaterials. Selecting appropriate characterization methods will help understand how nanomaterials interact with plants and promote advances in plant nanobiotechnology. However, there are relatively few reviews of tools for characterizing nanomaterials in plant nanobiotechnology. In this review, we present relevant imaging tools that have been used in plant nanobiotechnology to monitor nanomaterial migration, interaction with and internalization into plants at three-dimensional lengths. Including: 1) Migration of nanomaterial into plant organs 2) Penetration of nanomaterial into plant tissues (iii)Internalization of nanomaterials by plant cells and interactions with plant subcellular structures. We compare the advantages and disadvantages of current characterization tools and propose future optimal characterization methods for plant nanobiotechnology.
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.