Cited by 197Insect-Plant Interactions and ControlPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityPlant biochemistry and biosynthesis

Defence on demand: mechanisms behind optimal defence patterns

Open access
Meldau, Stefan, Erb, Matthias, Baldwin, Ian T.·2012·Annals of Botany

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The optimal defence hypothesis (ODH) predicts that tissues that contribute most to a plant's fitness and have the highest probability of being attacked will be the parts best defended against biotic threats, including herbivores. In general, young sink tissues and reproductive structures show stronger induced defence responses after attack from pathogens and herbivores and contain higher basal levels of specialized defensive metabolites than other plant parts. However, the underlying physiological mechanisms responsible for these developmentally regulated defence patterns remain unknown. SCOPE: This review summarizes current knowledge about optimal defence patterns in above- and below-ground plant tissues, including information on basal and induced defence metabolite accumulation, defensive structures and their regulation by jasmonic acid (JA). Physiological regulations underlying developmental differences of tissues with contrasting defence patterns are highlighted, with a special focus on the role of classical plant growth hormones, including auxins, cytokinins, gibberellins and brassinosteroids, and their interactions with the JA pathway. By synthesizing recent findings about the dual roles of these growth hormones in plant development and defence responses, this review aims to provide a framework for new discoveries on the molecular basis of patterns predicted by the ODH. CONCLUSIONS: Almost four decades after its formulation, we are just beginning to understand the underlying molecular mechanisms responsible for the patterns of defence allocation predicted by the ODH. A requirement for future advances will be to understand how developmental and defence processes are integrated.

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 · 10.1093/aob/mcs212

Cites

0 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?

  • A drop in secondary metabolite levels a few weeks after germination or at the onset of flowering may reflect an increased need of primary metabolites and nutrients rather than a drop in herbivore pressure.

    “A drop in secondary metabolite levels, as is often observed a few weeks after germination or at the onset of flowering, for instance (Meldau et al., 2012;Barton and Boege, 2017), may reflect an increased need of primary metabolites and nutrients rather than a drop in herbivore pressure.”

    From Plant Secondary Metabolites as Defenses, Regulators, and Primary Metabolites: The Blurred Functional Trichotomy (2020) · cites this paper as Meldau et al., 2012

    The sections ‘Secondary metabolite concentrations are highest in young tissues’ and ‘Developmental aspects of defensive patterns’ report higher levels in young leaves and a decline in one maize defence metabolite as plants mature. They do not establish a general drop a few weeks after germination or in secondary-metabolite levels at flowering; the flowering example concerns reduced defence inducibility. The proposed explanation after the citations appears to be the citing authors’ interpretation, not a claim attributed to Meldau et al. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 7

  1. An CF, Mou ZL. 2011. Salicylic acid and its function in plant immunity. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 53: 412 -428.
  2. Argueso CT, Ferreira FJ, Epple P, et al. 2012. Two-component elements mediate interactions between cytokinin and salicylic acid in plant immunity. PloS Genetics 8: e1002448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal. pgen.1002448. · DOI
  3. Baldwin IT, Onmeiss TE. 1993. Alkaloidal responses to damage in Nicotiana native to North America. Journal of Chemical Ecology 19: 1143-1153
  4. Barrett SCH. 2010. Understanding plant reproductive diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. B: Biological Sciences 365: 99-109.
  5. Del Bianco M, Kepinski S. 2011. Context, specificity, and self-organization in auxin response. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 3: a001578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a001578. · DOI
  6. He JX, Gendron JM, Yang YL, Li JM, Wang ZY. 2002. The GSK3-like kinase BIN2 phosphorylates and destabilizes BZR1, a positive regulator of the brassinosteroid signaling pathway in Arabidopsis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 99: 10185-10190.
  7. Miller CO, Skoog F, Vonsaltza MH, Strong FM. 1955. Kinetin, a cell div- ision factor from deoxyribonucleic acid. Journal of the American Chemical Society 77: 1392-1392.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meldau, S., Erb, M., & Baldwin, I. T.
Affiliations
Max Planck Society (DE)
Corresponding author
Meldau, Stefan
Venue
Annals of Botany
Published
2012-09-28
Volume
110
Issue
8
Pages
1503-1514
ISSN
  • 0305-7364 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-8290
OpenAlex
W2072280600
Cited by
197
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 17
FWCI
1.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Botany (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Plant biochemistry and biosynthesis
Keywords
induced defense, jasmonic acid, plant hormones, auxin, cytokinins, gibberellin, brassinosteroids, sink tissues, herbivory, plant development, plant-pathogen interaction, plant-herbivore interactions
MeSH terms
Plant Diseases, Plant Growth Regulators, Plants, Signal Transduction, Plant Components, Aerial, Plant Immunity, Herbivory, Plant Development

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