The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The wheat powdery mildew genome shows the unique evolution of an obligate biotroph
Open accessAbstract
Thomas Wicker and colleagues report the whole-genome sequencing of four wheat powdery mildew (Blumeria graminis forma specialis tritici) isolates from different geographic regions. Their comparative genomic analysis provides insights into the evolution of powdery mildews, which are obligate biotropic fungal pathogens. Wheat powdery mildew, Blumeria graminis forma specialis tritici, is a devastating fungal pathogen with a poorly understood evolutionary history. Here we report the draft genome sequence of wheat powdery mildew, the resequencing of three additional isolates from different geographic regions and comparative analyses with the barley powdery mildew genome. Our comparative genomic analyses identified 602 candidate effector genes, with many showing evidence of positive selection. We characterize patterns of genetic diversity and suggest that mildew genomes are mosaics of ancient haplogroups that existed before wheat domestication. The patterns of diversity in modern isolates suggest that there was no pronounced loss of genetic diversity upon formation of the new host bread wheat 10,000 years ago. We conclude that the ready adaptation of B. graminis f.sp. tritici to the new host species was based on a diverse haplotype pool that provided great genetic potential for pathogen variation.
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
Jones, J. D. G., & Dangl, J. L. (2006) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05286 · Cited by 13,177
Cited by
Fungal Effectors and Plant Susceptibility
Lo Presti, L., Lanver, D., Schweizer, G., Tanaka, S., Liang, L., Tollot, M., Zuccaro, A., Reissmann, S., & Kahmann, R. (2015) · Annual Review of Plant Biology · doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-043014-114623 · Cited by 1,249
Evolution and genome architecture in fungal plant pathogens
Möller, M., & Stukenbrock, E. H. (2017) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro.2017.76 · Cited by 432
E ffector P: predicting fungal effector proteins from secretomes using machine learning
Sperschneider, J., Gardiner, D. M., Dodds, P. N., Tini, F., Covarelli, L., Singh, K. B., Manners, J. M., & Taylor, J. M. (2016) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.13794 · Cited by 419
Weßling, R., Epple, P., Altmann, S., He, Y., Yang, L., Henz, S. R., McDonald, N., Wiley, K., Bader, K. C., Gläßer, C., et al. (2014) · Cell Host & Microbe · doi:10.1016/j.chom.2014.08.004 · Cited by 406
Self-citationImproved prediction of fungal effector proteins from secretomes with EffectorP 2.0
Sperschneider, J., Dodds, P. N., Gardiner, D. M., Singh, K. B., & Taylor, J. M. (2018) · Molecular Plant Pathology · doi:10.1111/mpp.12682 · Cited by 403
Metadata
- Authors
- Wicker, T., Oberhaensli, S., Parlange, F., Buchmann, J. P., Shatalina, M., Roffler, S., Ben-David, R., Doležel, J., Šimková, H., Schulze-Lefert, P., Spanu, P. D., Bruggmann, R., Amselem, J., Quesneville, H., Ver Loren van Themaat, E., Paape, T., Shimizu, K. K., & Keller, B.
- Venue
- Nature Genetics
- Published
- 2013-07-14
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1092-1096
- ISSN
- 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
- 1546-1718
- OpenAlex
- W2001402566
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 29.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: The wheat powdery mildew genome shows the unique evolution of an obligate biotroph. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ng.2704
- The paper
- Wicker, T., Oberhaensli, S., Parlange, F., Buchmann, J. P., Shatalina, M., Roffler, S., Ben-David, R., Doležel, J., Šimková, H., Schulze-Lefert, P., Spanu, P. D., Bruggmann, R., Amselem, J., Quesneville, H., Ver Loren van Themaat, E., Paape, T., Shimizu, K. K., & Keller, B. (2013). The wheat powdery mildew genome shows the unique evolution of an obligate biotroph. Nature Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2704
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.
