Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 447

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Localized versus systemic effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on defence responses to Phytophthora infection in tomato plants

Open access
Pozo, Maria J., Cordier, Christelle, Dumas‐Gaudot, Eliane, Gianinazzi, Silvio, Barea, Jose M., Azcón‐Aguilar, Concepción·2002·Journal of Experimental Botany

Abstract

Development of biological control for plant diseases is accepted as a durable and environmentally friendly alternative for agrochemicals. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), which form symbiotic associations with root systems of most agricultural, horticultural and hardwood crop species, have been suggested as widespread potential bioprotective agents. In the present study the ability of two AMF (Glomus mosseae and Glomus intraradices) to induce local or systemic resistance to Phytophthora parasitica in tomato roots have been compared using a split root experimental system. Glomus mosseae was effective in reducing disease symptoms produced by P. parasitica infection, and evidence points to a combination of local and systemic mechanisms being responsible for this bioprotector effect. The biochemical analysis of different plant defence-related enzymes showed a local induction of mycorrhiza-related new isoforms of the hydrolytic enzymes chitinase, chitosanase and beta-1,3-glucanase, as well as superoxide dismutase, an enzyme which is involved in cell protection against oxidative stress. Systemic alterations of the activity of some of the constitutive isoforms were also observed in non-mycorrhizal roots of mycorrhizal plants. Studies on the lytic activity against Phytophthora cell wall of root protein extracts also corroborated a systemic effect of mycorrhizal symbiosis on tomato resistance to Phytophthora.

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 · 10.1093/jexbot/53.368.525

Cites

39 of 39 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 39 references

Cited by

See all 447

Metadata

Authors
Pozo, M. J., Cordier, C., Dumas‐Gaudot, E., Gianinazzi, S., Barea, J. M., & Azcón‐Aguilar, C.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Botany
Published
2002-03-01
Volume
53
Issue
368
Pages
525-534
ISSN
  • 0022-0957 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2431
OpenAlex
W2142893956
Cited by
447
References
39
FWCI
17.17
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: Localized versus systemic effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on defence responses to Phytophthora infection in tomato plants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jexbot/53.368.525
The paper
Pozo, M. J., Cordier, C., Dumas‐Gaudot, E., Gianinazzi, S., Barea, J. M., & Azcón‐Aguilar, C. (2002). Localized versus systemic effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on defence responses to Phytophthora infection in tomato plants. Journal of Experimental Botany. https://doi.org/10.1093/jexbot/53.368.525

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.