1959
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/10.2.290
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Flexible Growth Function for Empirical Use

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

13
1,913
0
150

Year Published

1972
1972
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3,462 publications
(2,157 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
13
1,913
0
150
Order By: Relevance
“…Amylose and amylopectin content were determined according to the Megazyme International Ireland 2006. The processes of starch accumulation in the grain were fitted by Richards' (1959) Gene expression and expression rate calculation Gene expression was performed using a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Total RNA from endosperm was isolated using Trizol reagent (TianGen No.…”
Section: Enzyme Isolation Assays and Starch Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Amylose and amylopectin content were determined according to the Megazyme International Ireland 2006. The processes of starch accumulation in the grain were fitted by Richards' (1959) Gene expression and expression rate calculation Gene expression was performed using a reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Total RNA from endosperm was isolated using Trizol reagent (TianGen No.…”
Section: Enzyme Isolation Assays and Starch Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Putter, Yaron and Bielorai, 1966), some non-linear (e.g. Richards, 1959;Nelder, Austin, Bleasdale and Salter, 1960), and recently some have been advanced which are only expressible by computer simulation (e.g. Paltridge, 1970;de Wit and Brouwer, 1968).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Instead, a relationship between k P and a 2 b was formulated for which it was found that for total body protein a 2 b < 2/9, with equality at maximum PR. This is in contradiction to the difference a 2 b 5 1 for the logistic or the monomolecular, to a 2 b 5 1/3 for the von Bertalanffy (1960) curve on the basis of a surface and volume argument and to a 2 b -0 for the Gompertz, which can be derived from equation (1) for a 5 1 and b -1 Hence, the conclusion follows that an argument based on the quantification of PR efficiency with the incorporation of protein turnover renders all the best known members of the Richards (1959) family of curves inappropriate for protein growth description. It therefore seems worthwhile to investigate what sort of scaling of physiological processes can characterize a family of curves resulting in a 2 b 5 2/9 or a 2 b 5 (4/9)Y, with Y representing the power in the relationship between cell volume and total protein in different tissues (Roux, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Variation in body mass growth form has been investigated by Gaillard et al (1997) by fitting the Richards (1959) growth curve family from birth to adulthood to 69 species of eutherian mammals. They showed Table 5 The fitting of equation (7) to average protein retention and protein maturity (P/a) in four growth periods on data published by Quiniou et al (1996) that growth form differs significantly among eutherian mammals and concluded that 'the commonly used Gompertz model can no longer be considered as the general model for the description of mammalian growth.'…”
Section: Experimental Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%