Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 745

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Extensive sampling of basidiomycete genomes demonstrates inadequacy of the white-rot/brown-rot paradigm for wood decay fungi

Open access
Riley, Robert, Salamov, Asaf A., Brown, Daren W., Nagy, Laszlo G., Floudas, Dimitrios, Held, Benjamin W., Levasseur, Anthony, Lombard, Vincent, Morin, Emmanuelle, Otillar, Robert, Lindquist, Erika A., Sun, Hui, LaButti, Kurt M., Schmutz, Jeremy, Jabbour, Dina, Luo, Hong, Baker, Scott E., Pisabarro, Antonio G., Walton, Jonathan D., Blanchette, Robert A., Henrissat, Bernard, Martin, Francis, Cullen, Dan, Hibbett, David S., Grigoriev, Igor V.·2014·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1400592111
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Significance: Wood decay fungi have historically been characterized as either white rot, which degrade all components of plant cell walls, including lignin, or brown rot, which leave lignin largely intact. Genomic analyses have shown that white-rot species possess multiple lignin-degrading peroxidases (PODs) and expanded suites of enzymes attacking crystalline cellulose. To test the adequacy of the white/brown-rot categories, we analyzed 33 fungal genomes. Some species lack PODs, and thus resemble brown-rot fungi, but possess the cellulose-degrading apparatus typical of white-rot fungi. Moreover, they appear to degrade lignin, based on decay analyses on wood wafers. Our results indicate that the prevailing paradigm of white rot vs. brown rot does not capture the diversity of fungal wood decay mechanisms.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1400592111

Cites

6 of 6 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

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 745

Metadata

Authors
Riley, R., Salamov, A. A., Brown, D. W., Nagy, L. G., Floudas, D., Held, B. W., Levasseur, A., Lombard, V., Morin, E., Otillar, R., Lindquist, E. A., Sun, H., LaButti, K. M., Schmutz, J., Jabbour, D., Luo, H., Baker, S. E., Pisabarro, A. G., Walton, J. D., Blanchette, R. A., Henrissat, B., Martin, F., Cullen, D., Hibbett, D. S., & Grigoriev, I. V.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2014-06-23
Volume
111
Issue
27
Pages
9923-9928
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1400592111
OpenAlex
W2016399990
Cited by
745
References
6
FWCI
70.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Extensive sampling of basidiomycete genomes demonstrates inadequacy of the white-rot/brown-rot paradigm for wood decay fungi. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1400592111
The paper
Riley, R., Salamov, A. A., Brown, D. W., Nagy, L. G., Floudas, D., Held, B. W., Levasseur, A., Lombard, V., Morin, E., Otillar, R., Lindquist, E. A., Sun, H., LaButti, K. M., Schmutz, J., Jabbour, D., Luo, H., Baker, S. E., Pisabarro, A. G., Walton, J. D., . . . Grigoriev, I. V. (2014). Extensive sampling of basidiomycete genomes demonstrates inadequacy of the white-rot/brown-rot paradigm for wood decay fungi. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1400592111

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.