CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 230

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tomato HsfA1a plays a critical role in plant drought tolerance by activating ATG genes and inducing autophagy

Wang, Yu, Cai, Shuyu, Yin, Lingling, Shi, Kai, Xia, Xiaojian, Zhou, Yanhong, Yu, Jingquan, Zhou, Jie·2015·Autophagy
DOI 10.1080/15548627.2015.1098798PMC PMC4824577
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1080/15548627.2015.1098798

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Functional analysis of HsfA1a in response to drought stress in tomato leaves. (A) The expression of HsfA1a in the WT plants under drought stress. Six-wk-old tomato WT Ailsa Craig plants were exposed to dehydration by withholding water. Total RNA was isolated from leaf samples of the WT plants at the indicated times. (B and C) Reduced or increased tomato drought tolerance in TRV-HsfA1a or HsfA1aOE plants. Six-wk-old plants in soils were exposed to dehydration by withholding water for 13 d. Bars: 10 cm. (D) Relative water content (RWC) of the terminal leaflets were determined immediately after 13 d of control or drought treatment in TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants or WT and HsfA1aOE plants. All data are presented as the means of 5 biological replicates (± SE). Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P< 0.05 according to Duncan multiple range test. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results. 1# and 3#, 2 lines of HsfA1aOE plants; OE, overexpressing; WT, wild-type.
Figure 1. Functional analysis of HsfA1a in response to drought stress in tomato leaves. (A) The expression of HsfA1a in the WT plants under drought stress. Six-wk-old tomato WT Ailsa Craig plants were exposed to dehydration by withholding water. Total RNA was isolated from leaf samples of the WT plants at the indicated times. (B and C) Reduced or increased tomato drought tolerance in TRV-HsfA1a or HsfA1aOE plants. Six-wk-old plants in soils were exposed to dehydration by withholding water for 13 d. Bars: 10 cm. (D) Relative water content (RWC) of the terminal leaflets were determined immediately after 13 d of control or drought treatment in TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants or WT and HsfA1aOE plants. All data are presented as the means of 5 biological replicates (± SE). Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P< 0.05 according to Duncan multiple range test. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results. 1# and 3#, 2 lines of HsfA1aOE plants; OE, overexpressing; WT, wild-type.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Stomatal aperture and ABA content in TRV-HsfA1a and HsfA1aOE plants after 6 d under drought stress. (A) Microphotographs of stomata observed in TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants under drought stress. Bars: 10 µm. (B) Ratio of stomatal aperture length over width were plotted for the TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants under drought stress. The data are presented as the means of 5 biological replicates (± SE); each replicate represents the average stomatal aperture of 150 randomly selected stomata. (C) Accumulation of ABA in TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants under drought stress. (D) Microphotographs of stomata observed in WT and HsfA1aOE plants under drought stress. Bars: 10 µm. (E) Ratio of stomatal aperture length over width were plotted for the WT and HsfA1aOE plants under drought stress. The data are presented as the means of 5 biological replicates (± SE); each replicate represents the average stomatal aperture of 150 randomly selected stomata. (F) Accumulation of ABA in WT and HsfA1aOE plants under drought stress. The data are presented as the means of 5 biological replicates (± SE). Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P< 0.05 according to the Duncan multiple range test. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results. OE, overexpressing; WT, wild-type.
Figure 2. Stomatal aperture and ABA content in TRV-HsfA1a and HsfA1aOE plants after 6 d under drought stress. (A) Microphotographs of stomata observed in TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants under drought stress. Bars: 10 µm. (B) Ratio of stomatal aperture length over width were plotted for the TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants under drought stress. The data are presented as the means of 5 biological replicates (± SE); each replicate represents the average stomatal aperture of 150 randomly selected stomata. (C) Accumulation of ABA in TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants under drought stress. (D) Microphotographs of stomata observed in WT and HsfA1aOE plants under drought stress. Bars: 10 µm. (E) Ratio of stomatal aperture length over width were plotted for the WT and HsfA1aOE plants under drought stress. The data are presented as the means of 5 biological replicates (± SE); each replicate represents the average stomatal aperture of 150 randomly selected stomata. (F) Accumulation of ABA in WT and HsfA1aOE plants under drought stress. The data are presented as the means of 5 biological replicates (± SE). Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P< 0.05 according to the Duncan multiple range test. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results. OE, overexpressing; WT, wild-type.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Accumulation and ubiquitination of insoluble proteins in TRV, TRV-HsfA1a, WT and HsfA1aOE plants under drought stress. (A) Accumulation of insoluble proteins in TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants under drought stress. Leaf tissues from TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants collected at d 13 under drought stress for the preparation of total, soluble and insoluble proteins as described in the Materials and Methods. Total proteins in the starting homogenates and insoluble proteins in the last pellets were determined for the calculation of the percentages of insoluble proteins to total proteins. The data are presented as the means of 5 biological replicates (± SE). Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P< 0.05 according to the Duncan multiple range test. (B) Ubiquitination of insoluble protein aggregates in TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants collected at day 13 under drought stress. Proteins from the starting homogenates (T), first supernatant fractions (S) and last pellet fractions (P) were subjected to SDS-PAGE and probed with an anti-ubiquitin monoclonal antibody. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results. (C) Accumulation of insoluble proteins in WT and HsfA1aOE plants under drought stress. Leaf tissues from WT and HsfA1aOE plants collected at d 13 under drought stress for the preparation of total, soluble and insoluble proteins as described in Materials and Methods. Total proteins in the starting homogenates and insoluble proteins in the last pellets were determined for the calculation of the percentages of insoluble proteins to total proteins. The data are presented as the means of 5 biological replicates (± SE). Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P < 0.05 according to the Duncan multiple range test. (D) Ubiquitination of insoluble protein aggregates in WT and HsfA1aOE plants collected at day 13 under drought stress. Proteins from the starting homogenates (T), first supernatant fractions (S) and last pellet fractions (P) were subjected to SDS-PAGE and probed with an anti-ubiquitin monoclonal antibody. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results.
Figure 3. Accumulation and ubiquitination of insoluble proteins in TRV, TRV-HsfA1a, WT and HsfA1aOE plants under drought stress. (A) Accumulation of insoluble proteins in TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants under drought stress. Leaf tissues from TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants collected at d 13 under drought stress for the preparation of total, soluble and insoluble proteins as described in the Materials and Methods. Total proteins in the starting homogenates and insoluble proteins in the last pellets were determined for the calculation of the percentages of insoluble proteins to total proteins. The data are presented as the means of 5 biological replicates (± SE). Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P< 0.05 according to the Duncan multiple range test. (B) Ubiquitination of insoluble protein aggregates in TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants collected at day 13 under drought stress. Proteins from the starting homogenates (T), first supernatant fractions (S) and last pellet fractions (P) were subjected to SDS-PAGE and probed with an anti-ubiquitin monoclonal antibody. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results. (C) Accumulation of insoluble proteins in WT and HsfA1aOE plants under drought stress. Leaf tissues from WT and HsfA1aOE plants collected at d 13 under drought stress for the preparation of total, soluble and insoluble proteins as described in Materials and Methods. Total proteins in the starting homogenates and insoluble proteins in the last pellets were determined for the calculation of the percentages of insoluble proteins to total proteins. The data are presented as the means of 5 biological replicates (± SE). Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P < 0.05 according to the Duncan multiple range test. (D) Ubiquitination of insoluble protein aggregates in WT and HsfA1aOE plants collected at day 13 under drought stress. Proteins from the starting homogenates (T), first supernatant fractions (S) and last pellet fractions (P) were subjected to SDS-PAGE and probed with an anti-ubiquitin monoclonal antibody. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Induction of autophagy genes by drought stress in TRV, TRV-HsfA1a, WT and HsfA1aOE plants. Six-wk-old tomato plants were exposed to dehydration by withholding water and total RNA was isolated from leaf samples collected on d 6. Transcript levels were determined using qRT-PCR. All data are presented as the means of 5 biological replicates (± SE). Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P< 0.05 according to the Duncan multiple range test. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results.
Figure 4. Induction of autophagy genes by drought stress in TRV, TRV-HsfA1a, WT and HsfA1aOE plants. Six-wk-old tomato plants were exposed to dehydration by withholding water and total RNA was isolated from leaf samples collected on d 6. Transcript levels were determined using qRT-PCR. All data are presented as the means of 5 biological replicates (± SE). Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P< 0.05 according to the Duncan multiple range test. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 5. Visualization of the accumulation of autophagosomes in tomato leaves under drought stress. (A and B) MDC-stained autophagosomes in the leaves of TRV and TRV-HsfA1a or WT and HsfA1aOE plants. Six-wk-old plants were exposed to dehydration by withholding water and the leaves were MDC-stained and visualized on day 6 by fluorescence confocal microscopy. MDC-labeled structures are shown as green signals. Bars: 25 μm. (C) Relative autophagic activity normalized to the activity of the TRV or WT control plants in (A and B). The MDC-stained autophagosomes in leaves at each treatment were quantified to calculate the autophagic activity relative to TRV or WT control plants, which was set to 1. More than 300 mesophyll cells for each treatment were used for the quantification. (D and E) Representative transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of autophagic structures in the mesophyll cells of TRV and TRV-HsfA1a or WT and HsfA1aOE plants. Six-wk-old plants were exposed to dehydration by withholding water and the mesophyll cells were visualized on d 6 by TEM. Autophagic bodies are indicated by red arrows. Bars: 1 µm. (F) Relative autophagic activity normalized to the activity of the TRV or WT control plants in (D and E). More than 20 cells were used to quantify autophagic structures. (G and H) Atg8 protein levels in the leaves of TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants or WT and HsfA1aOE plants. Atg8 and Atg8–PE are the nonlipidated and lipidated forms of Atg8, respectively. The Rubisco large subunit was used as a loading control for the western blotting analysis. Results represent the means ± SE. Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P< 0.05 according to the Duncan multiple range test. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results. Cp, chloroplast; V, vacuole; S, starch; OE, overexpressing; WT, wild-type; 1# and 3#, 2 lines of HsfA1aOE plants.
Figure 5. Visualization of the accumulation of autophagosomes in tomato leaves under drought stress. (A and B) MDC-stained autophagosomes in the leaves of TRV and TRV-HsfA1a or WT and HsfA1aOE plants. Six-wk-old plants were exposed to dehydration by withholding water and the leaves were MDC-stained and visualized on day 6 by fluorescence confocal microscopy. MDC-labeled structures are shown as green signals. Bars: 25 μm. (C) Relative autophagic activity normalized to the activity of the TRV or WT control plants in (A and B). The MDC-stained autophagosomes in leaves at each treatment were quantified to calculate the autophagic activity relative to TRV or WT control plants, which was set to 1. More than 300 mesophyll cells for each treatment were used for the quantification. (D and E) Representative transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of autophagic structures in the mesophyll cells of TRV and TRV-HsfA1a or WT and HsfA1aOE plants. Six-wk-old plants were exposed to dehydration by withholding water and the mesophyll cells were visualized on d 6 by TEM. Autophagic bodies are indicated by red arrows. Bars: 1 µm. (F) Relative autophagic activity normalized to the activity of the TRV or WT control plants in (D and E). More than 20 cells were used to quantify autophagic structures. (G and H) Atg8 protein levels in the leaves of TRV and TRV-HsfA1a plants or WT and HsfA1aOE plants. Atg8 and Atg8–PE are the nonlipidated and lipidated forms of Atg8, respectively. The Rubisco large subunit was used as a loading control for the western blotting analysis. Results represent the means ± SE. Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P< 0.05 according to the Duncan multiple range test. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results. Cp, chloroplast; V, vacuole; S, starch; OE, overexpressing; WT, wild-type; 1# and 3#, 2 lines of HsfA1aOE plants.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 6. HsfA1a binds to the promoters of ATG10 and ATG18f in vitro and in vivo. (A) Oligonucleotide used in the electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSA). The ATG10 probe contains one direct HSE, whereas in the ATG10−1Δ and ATG10–2Δ probes the HSE core sequence was mutated. The ATG18f probe contains one direct HSE, whereas in the ATG18fΔ probe, the HSE core sequence was mutated. The WT and mutated HSE sequences are underlined. The mutated bases were indicated in red. (B and C) EMSA showing HsfA1a bound to the HSE sequences of the ATG10 or ATG18f promoters. Recombinant HsfA1a was purified from E. coli cells and used for DNA binding assays with ATG10, ATG10−1Δ, ATG10–2Δ, ATG18f, or ATG18fΔ as the probes. His was included as the negative control. (D) Direct binding of HsfA1a to the ATG10 and ATG18f promoters was analyzed using ChIP-qPCR in 35S-HsfA1a-HA-overexpressing (HsfA1aOE) plants. Six-wk-old HsfA1aOE plants were exposed to dehydration by withholding water and input chromatin was isolated from leaf samples on d 6. The epitope-tagged HsfA1a-chromatin complex was immunoprecipitated with an anti-HA antibody. A control reaction was processed side-by-side using mouse IgG. Input- and ChIP-DNA samples were quantified by qRT-PCR using primers specific for the promoters of the ATG genes. The ChIP results are presented as percentage of the input DNA. Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P< 0.05 according to the Duncan multiple range test. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results. OE, overexpressing; 1#, line of HsfA1aOE plants.
Figure 6. HsfA1a binds to the promoters of ATG10 and ATG18f in vitro and in vivo. (A) Oligonucleotide used in the electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSA). The ATG10 probe contains one direct HSE, whereas in the ATG10−1Δ and ATG10–2Δ probes the HSE core sequence was mutated. The ATG18f probe contains one direct HSE, whereas in the ATG18fΔ probe, the HSE core sequence was mutated. The WT and mutated HSE sequences are underlined. The mutated bases were indicated in red. (B and C) EMSA showing HsfA1a bound to the HSE sequences of the ATG10 or ATG18f promoters. Recombinant HsfA1a was purified from E. coli cells and used for DNA binding assays with ATG10, ATG10−1Δ, ATG10–2Δ, ATG18f, or ATG18fΔ as the probes. His was included as the negative control. (D) Direct binding of HsfA1a to the ATG10 and ATG18f promoters was analyzed using ChIP-qPCR in 35S-HsfA1a-HA-overexpressing (HsfA1aOE) plants. Six-wk-old HsfA1aOE plants were exposed to dehydration by withholding water and input chromatin was isolated from leaf samples on d 6. The epitope-tagged HsfA1a-chromatin complex was immunoprecipitated with an anti-HA antibody. A control reaction was processed side-by-side using mouse IgG. Input- and ChIP-DNA samples were quantified by qRT-PCR using primers specific for the promoters of the ATG genes. The ChIP results are presented as percentage of the input DNA. Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P< 0.05 according to the Duncan multiple range test. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results. OE, overexpressing; 1#, line of HsfA1aOE plants.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 7. Visualization of the accumulation of autophagosomes by confocal microscopy and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) in ATG10 and ATG18f-silenced plants under drought stress. (A) MDC-stained autophagosomes in the leaves of WT TRV, TRV-ATG10 and TRV-ATG18f plants or HsfA1aOE TRV, TRV-ATG10 and TRV-ATG18f plants. Six-wk-old plants were exposed to dehydration by withholding water and the leaves were MDC-stained and visualized on day 6 by fluorescence confocal microscopy. MDC-labeled structures are visible as green signals. Bars: 25 μm. (B) Relative autophagic activity normalized to the activity of WT TRV control plants in (A). Quantification of the MDC-stained autophagosomes in the leaves at each treatment was performed to calculate the autophagic activity relative to WT TRV control plants, which was set to 1. More than 300 mesophyll cells for each treatment were used for the quantification. (C) TEM images of autophagic structures in the mesophyll cells of WT TRV, TRV-ATG10 and TRV-ATG18f plants or HsfA1aOE TRV, TRV-ATG10 and TRV-ATG18f plants. Six-wk-old plants were exposed to dehydration by withholding water and the mesophyll cells were visualized on d 6 by TEM. Autophagic bodies are indicated by red arrows. Bars: 1 µm. (D) Relative autophagic activity normalized to the activity in WT TRV control plants in (C). More than 20 cells were used to quantify autophagic structures. Results represent the means ± SE. Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P< 0.05 according to the Duncan multiple range test. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results. Cp, chloroplast; V, vacuole; S, starch; WT, wild-type; OE, overexpressing; 1#, line of HsfA1aOE plants.
Figure 7. Visualization of the accumulation of autophagosomes by confocal microscopy and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) in ATG10 and ATG18f-silenced plants under drought stress. (A) MDC-stained autophagosomes in the leaves of WT TRV, TRV-ATG10 and TRV-ATG18f plants or HsfA1aOE TRV, TRV-ATG10 and TRV-ATG18f plants. Six-wk-old plants were exposed to dehydration by withholding water and the leaves were MDC-stained and visualized on day 6 by fluorescence confocal microscopy. MDC-labeled structures are visible as green signals. Bars: 25 μm. (B) Relative autophagic activity normalized to the activity of WT TRV control plants in (A). Quantification of the MDC-stained autophagosomes in the leaves at each treatment was performed to calculate the autophagic activity relative to WT TRV control plants, which was set to 1. More than 300 mesophyll cells for each treatment were used for the quantification. (C) TEM images of autophagic structures in the mesophyll cells of WT TRV, TRV-ATG10 and TRV-ATG18f plants or HsfA1aOE TRV, TRV-ATG10 and TRV-ATG18f plants. Six-wk-old plants were exposed to dehydration by withholding water and the mesophyll cells were visualized on d 6 by TEM. Autophagic bodies are indicated by red arrows. Bars: 1 µm. (D) Relative autophagic activity normalized to the activity in WT TRV control plants in (C). More than 20 cells were used to quantify autophagic structures. Results represent the means ± SE. Means with the same letter did not significantly differ at P< 0.05 according to the Duncan multiple range test. Three independent experiments were performed with similar results. Cp, chloroplast; V, vacuole; S, starch; WT, wild-type; OE, overexpressing; 1#, line of HsfA1aOE plants.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 8. A proposed model for the induction of autophagy by HsfA1a in tomato plants under drought stress. HsfA1a is first activated under drought stress by increasing transcription and trimer formation. Then, activated HsfA1a binds to and upregulates the expression of ATG10 and ATG18f leading to an increase in autophagy. The increase in autophagy leads to an increase in the degradation of insoluble ubiquitinated protein aggregates and cell survival under drought stress.
Figure 8. A proposed model for the induction of autophagy by HsfA1a in tomato plants under drought stress. HsfA1a is first activated under drought stress by increasing transcription and trimer formation. Then, activated HsfA1a binds to and upregulates the expression of ATG10 and ATG18f leading to an increase in autophagy. The increase in autophagy leads to an increase in the degradation of insoluble ubiquitinated protein aggregates and cell survival under drought stress.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

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

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. 10.1038/nature10317 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/j.cell.2011.10.026 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/ni1253 · DOI
  4. 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02336.x · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.pbi.2011.02.001 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.pbi.2007.06.006 · DOI
  7. 10.1126/science.290.5497.1717 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/BF03036132 · DOI
  9. 10.1007/s10059-012-0098-y · DOI
  10. 10.4161/auto.6555 · DOI
  11. 10.1371/journal.pone.0011883 · DOI
  12. 10.3389/fpls.2014.00174 · DOI
  13. 10.1038/nrm2938 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.tplants.2007.08.014 · DOI
  15. Scharf KD, 2012, Bba-Gene Regul Mech, 1819, 104
  16. 10.1379/1466-1268(2001)006%3c0177:AATHST%3e2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  17. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2004.02111.x · DOI
  18. 10.1007/s00438-011-0647-7 · DOI
  19. 10.1093/pcp/pcr045 · DOI
  20. 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02278.x · DOI
  21. 10.1128/MCB.18.4.2240 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.plaphy.2012.12.013 · DOI
  23. 10.1105/tpc.110.076018 · DOI
  24. 10.1101/gad.228802 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1046/j.1365-313X.1995.8040603.x · DOI
  26. 10.1046/j.1365-313X.2002.01261.x · DOI
  27. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2004.02122.x · DOI
  28. 10.1046/j.1365-313X.2002.01394.x · DOI
  29. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003196 · DOI
  30. 10.1105/tpc.112.108993 · DOI
  31. 10.1104/pp.112.208108 · DOI
  32. 10.1126/science.1152339 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.091401.143329 · DOI
  34. 10.1146/annurev.arplant.57.032905.105444 · DOI
  35. 10.1093/jxb/erl164 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/S1360-1385(01)02052-0 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.copbio.2005.02.001 · DOI
  38. 10.1042/BJ20041931 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.tplants.2004.03.006 · DOI
  40. 10.1038/cr.2010.181 · DOI
  41. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004116 · DOI
  42. 10.1104/pp.105.067983 · DOI
  43. 10.3389/fpls.2014.00122 · DOI
  44. 10.1007/s00109-011-0795-6 · DOI
  45. 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060208-092442 · DOI
  46. 10.1080/15548627.2015.1009776 · DOI
  47. 10.1126/science.292.5521.1552 · DOI
  48. 10.1021/bi981774j · DOI
  49. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2004.02272.x · DOI
  50. 10.1534/genetics.107.086199 · DOI
  51. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2005.02397.x · DOI
  52. 10.1104/pp.103.033431 · DOI
  53. 10.1074/jbc.M112.422071 · DOI
  54. 10.1074/jbc.M109.007336 · DOI
  55. 10.1105/tpc.114.124883 · DOI
  56. 10.1038/nbt0787-726 · DOI
  57. 10.1046/j.1365-313X.2003.01944.x · DOI
  58. 10.1111/pce.12275 · DOI
  59. 10.1093/jxb/erl291 · DOI · Paper page
  60. 10.1104/pp.108.117028 · DOI
  61. 10.1006/meth.2001.1262 · DOI · Paper page
  62. 10.1105/tpc.104.025395 · DOI · Paper page
  63. 10.1105/tpc.111.090571 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 230

Metadata

Authors
Wang, Y., Cai, S., Yin, L., Shi, K., Xia, X., Zhou, Y., Yu, J., & Zhou, J.
Affiliations
Department of Horticulture; Zijingang Campus; Zhejiang University; Hangzhou, China
Venue
Autophagy
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2015-11-02
Volume
11
Issue
11
Pages
2033-2047
ISSN
  • 1554-8627
  • 1554-8635
DOI
10.1080/15548627.2015.1098798
PMC
PMC4824577
Cited by
230
References
2
Language
en

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