The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Highly Branched Phenotype of the Petunia dad1-1 Mutant Is Reversed by Grafting
Open accessAbstract
The recessive dad1–1 allele conditions a highly branched growth habit resulting from a proliferation of first- and second-order branches. Unlike the wild-type parent, which has lateral branching delayed until the third or fourth leaf node distal to the cotyledons, dad1–1 initiates lateral branching from each cotyledon axil. In addition to initiating lateral branching sooner than the wild type, dad1–1 sustains branching through more nodes on the main shoot axis than the wild type. In keeping with a propensity for branching at basal nodes, dad1–1 produces second-order branches at the proximal-most nodes on first-order branches and small shoots from accessory buds at basal nodes on the main shoot axis. Additional traits associated with the mutation are late flowering, adventitious root formation, shortened internodes, and mild leaf chlorosis. Graft studies show that a dad1–1 scion, when grafted onto wild-type stock, is converted to a phenotype resembling the wild type. Furthermore, a small wild-type interstock fragment inserted between a mutant root stock and a mutant scion is sufficient to convert the dad1–1 scion from mutant to a near wild-type appearance. The recessive dad1–1 phenotype combines traits associated with cytokinin overexpression, auxin overexpression, and gibberellin limitation, which suggests a complex interaction of hormones in establishing the mutant phenotype.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Steeves, T. A., & Sussex, I. M. (1989) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511626227 · Cited by 1,334
Romano, C. P., Hein, M. B., & Klee, H. J. (1991) · Genes & Development · doi:10.1101/gad.5.3.438 · Cited by 232
Beveridge, C. A., Ross, J. J., & Murfet, I. C. (1994) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.104.3.953 · Cited by 132
Cited by
Strigolactone inhibition of shoot branching
Gomez-Roldan, V., Fermas, S., Brewer, P. B., Puech-Pagès, V., Dun, E. A., Pillot, J.-P., Letisse, F., Matusova, R., Danoun, S., Portais, J.-C., et al. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature07271 · Cited by 2,281
Signal integration in the control of shoot branching
Domagalska, M. A., & Leyser, O. (2011) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/nrm3088 · Cited by 835
The Plant Vascular System: Evolution, Development and Functions F
Lucas, W. J., Groover, A., Lichtenberger, R., Furuta, K., Yadav, S., Helariutta, Y., He, X., Fukuda, H., Kang, J., Brady, S. M., et al. (2013) · Journal of Integrative Plant Biology · doi:10.1111/jipb.12041 · Cited by 772
Lin, H., Wang, R., Qian, Q., Yan, M., Meng, X., Fu, Z., Yan, C., Jiang, B., Su, Z., Li, J., et al. (2009) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1105/tpc.109.065987 · Cited by 670
Hamiaux, C., Drummond, R. S. M., Janssen, B. J., Ledger, S. E., Cooney, J. M., Newcomb, R. D., & Snowden, K. C. (2012) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.08.007 · Cited by 623
Metadata
- Authors
- Napoli, C.
- Venue
- Plant Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996-05-01
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27-37
- ISSN
- 0032-0889 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2548
- OpenAlex
- W1547071071
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 2.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Highly Branched Phenotype of the Petunia dad1-1 Mutant Is Reversed by Grafting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1104/pp.111.1.27
- The paper
- Napoli, C. (1996). Highly Branched Phenotype of the Petunia dad1-1 Mutant Is Reversed by Grafting. Plant Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.111.1.27
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.