Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 401

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Molecular diagnostics for fungal plant pathogens

McCartney, H Alastair, Foster, Simon J, Fraaije, Bart A, Ward, Elaine·2003·Pest Management Science
DOI 10.1002/ps.575
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Accurate identification of fungal phytopathogens is essential for virtually all aspects of plant pathology, from fundamental research on the biology of pathogens to the control of the diseases they cause. Although molecular methods, such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), are routinely used in the diagnosis of human diseases, they are not yet widely used to detect and identify plant pathogens. Here we review some of the diagnostic tools currently used for fungal plant pathogens and describe some novel applications. Technological advances in PCR‐based methods, such as real‐time PCR, allow fast, accurate detection and quantification of plant pathogens and are now being applied to practical problems. Molecular methods have been used to detect several pathogens simultaneously in wheat, and to study the development of fungicide resistance in wheat pathogens. Information resulting from such work could be used to improve disease control by allowing more rational decisions to be made about the choice and use of fungicides and resistant cultivars. Molecular methods have also been applied to the study of variation in plant pathogen populations, for example detection of different mating types or virulence types. PCR‐based methods can provide new tools to monitor the exposure of a crop to pathogen inoculum that are more reliable and faster than conventional methods. This information can be used to improve disease control decision making. The development and application of molecular diagnostic methods in the future is discussed and we expect that new developments will increase the adoption of these new technologies for the diagnosis and study of plant disease. © 2003 Society of Chemical Industry

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ps.575

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 401

Metadata

Authors
McCartney, H. A., Foster, S. J., Fraaije, B. A., & Ward, E.
Venue
Pest Management Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-01-07
Volume
59
Issue
2
Pages
129-142
ISSN
  • 1526-498X (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-4998
DOI
10.1002/ps.575
OpenAlex
W2111102243
Cited by
401
References
67
FWCI
4.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.