Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39883189›Full record

ReviewAdvanced biotechnology2023

Studying plant autophagy: challenges and recommended methodologies.

Hua Qi, Yao Wang, Yan Bao, Diane C Bassham, Liang Chen, Qin-Fang Chen, Suiwen Hou, Inhwan Hwang, Li Huang, Zhibing Lai and 11 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advanced biotechnology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

21 authors.

Hua Qi *Guangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Agricultural & Rural Pollution Abatement and Environmental Safety, College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Yao Wang *State Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Plant Resources, School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, China.
Yan BaoSchool of Agriculture and Biology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200030, China.
Diane C BasshamDepartment of Genetics, Development and Cell Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA.
Liang ChenCollege of Life Sciences, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Qin-Fang ChenState Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Plant Resources, School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, China.
Suiwen HouKey Laboratory of Cell Activities and Stress Adaptations, Ministry of Education, School of Life Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Inhwan HwangDivision of Integrative Biosciences and Biotechnology and Department of Life Sciences, Pohang University of Science and Technology, Pohang, 37673, South Korea.
Li HuangInstitute of Plant and Food Science, Key Laboratory of Molecular Design for Plant Cell Factory of Guangdong Higher Education Institutes, Department of Biology, School of Life Sciences, Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech), Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518055, China.
Zhibing LaiNational Key Laboratory of Crop Genetic Improvement, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, 430070, China.
Faqiang LiCollege of Life Sciences, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Yule LiuMOE Key Laboratory of Bioinformatics, Center for Plant Biology, School of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China.
Rongliang QiuGuangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Agricultural & Rural Pollution Abatement and Environmental Safety, College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Hao WangCollege of Life Sciences, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Pengwei WangMOE Key Laboratory of Horticultural Plant Biology, College of Horticulture and Forestry Sciences, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, 430070, China.
Qingjun XieState Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Subtropical Agro-Bioresources, Key Laboratory for Enhancing Resource Use Efficiency of Crops in South China, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Plant Molecular Breeding, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Yonglun ZengSchool of Life Sciences, Centre for Cell & Developmental Biology, State Key Laboratory of Agrobiotechnology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, New Territories, Shatin Hong Kong, China.
Xiaohong ZhuangSchool of Life Sciences, Centre for Cell & Developmental Biology, State Key Laboratory of Agrobiotechnology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, New Territories, Shatin Hong Kong, China.
Caiji GaoGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Biotechnology for Plant Development, School of Life Sciences, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, 510631, China. gaocaiji@m.scnu.edu.cn.
Liwen JiangSchool of Life Sciences, Centre for Cell & Developmental Biology, State Key Laboratory of Agrobiotechnology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, New Territories, Shatin Hong Kong, China. ljiang@cuhk.edu.hk.
Shi XiaoState Key Laboratory of Biocontrol, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Plant Resources, School of Life Sciences, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, China. xiaoshi3@mail.sysu.edu.cn.

Funding

National Science Foundation MCB-2040582Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province 2022A1515012500
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In plants, autophagy is a conserved process by which intracellular materials, including damaged proteins, aggregates, and entire organelles, are trafficked to the vacuole for degradation, thus maintaining cellular homeostasis. The past few decades have seen extensive research into the core components of the central autophagy machinery and their physiological roles in plant growth and development as well as responses to biotic and abiotic stresses. Moreover, several methods have been established for monitoring autophagic activities in plants, and these have greatly facilitated plant autophagy research. However, some of the methodologies are prone to misuse or misinterpretation, sometimes casting doubt on the reliability of the conclusions being drawn about plant autophagy. Here, we summarize the methods that are widely used for monitoring plant autophagy at the physiological, microscopic, and biochemical levels, including discussions of their advantages and limitations, to provide a guide for studying this important process.

Indexed as

ATG8 lipidationAutophagyGFP-ATG8 cleavageMethodologyMicroscopy analysis

Identifiers

PMID39883189
PMCPMC11727600

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.