Cited by 16Insect Resistance and GeneticsGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchTransgenic Plants and Applications

Towards better insect management strategy: restriction of insecticidal gene expression to biting sites in transgenic cotton

Open access
Anayol, Emine, Bakhsh, Allah, Karakoç, Ömer Cem, Onarıcı, Selma, Köm, Deniz, Aasim, Muhammad, Özcan, Sancar Fatih, Barpete, Surendra +6 more·2016·Plant Biotechnology Reports

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 · 10.1007/s11816-016-0388-5

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The wound-inducible AoPR1 promotor isolated from Asparagus officinalis has been successfully used in cotton and potato.

    “Another example is the successful use of the wound-inducible AoPR1 promotor isolated from Asparagus officinalis in cotton and potato (Ahmed et al., 2017;Anayol et al., 2016).”

    From Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control (2019) · cites this paper as Anayol et al., 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wang W, Zhu Z, Deng CY (1998) Obtaining of pest resistant cotton by transforming mediated Agrobacterium. In: New frontiers in cotton research, World cotton research conference 2, Athens, 1998, pp 119

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anayol, E., Bakhsh, A., Karakoç, Ö. C., Onarıcı, S., Köm, D., Aasim, M., Özcan, S. F., Barpete, S., Khabbazi, S. D., Önol, B., Sancak, C., Khawar, K. M., Ünlü, L., & Özcan, S.
Affiliations
  • Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock (TR)
  • Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi (TR)
  • Çankırı Karatekin University (TR)
  • Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu (TR)
  • Ankara University (TR)
  • Selçuk University (TR)
Corresponding author
  • Bakhsh, Allah
  • Özcan, Sancar Fatih
  • Özcan, Sebahattin
Venue
Plant Biotechnology Reports
Published
2016-03
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
83-94
ISSN
  • 1863-5466 (ISSN-L)
  • 1863-5474
OpenAlex
W2296409400
Cited by
16
References
53
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Plant Biotechnology Reports (publishedVersion)
  • eArşiv - KMÜ (Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Niğde Üniversitesi Açık Erişim Sistemi (submittedVersion)
Funders
TÜBİTAK (111O254)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Insect Resistance and Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Transgenic Plants and Applications
Keywords
transgenic cotton, Bt crops, cry1Ac gene, wound-inducible promoter, targeted gene expression, Spodoptera exigua, Spodoptera littoralis, insect resistance management, Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, phosphinothricin selection, crop residues

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