The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Regulation of Enteric Endophytic Bacterial Colonization by Plant Defenses
Open accessAbstract
Bacterial endophytes reside within the interior of plants without causing disease or forming symbiotic structures. Some endophytes, such as Klebsiella pneumoniae 342 (Kp342), enhance plant growth and nutrition. Others, such as Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (S. typhimurium), are human pathogens that contaminate raw produce. Several lines of evidence are presented here to support the hypothesis that plant defense response pathways regulate colonization by endophytic bacteria. An ethyleneinsensitive mutant of Medicago truncatula is hypercolonized by Kp342 compared to the parent genotype. Addition of ethylene, a signal molecule for induced systemic resistance in plants, decreased endophytic colonization in Medicago spp. This ethylene-mediated inhibition of endophytic colonization was reversed by addition of the ethylene action inhibitor, 1-methylcyclopropene. Colonization of Medicago spp. by S. typhimurium also was affected by exogenous ethylene. Mutants lacking flagella or a component of the type III secretion system of Salmonella pathogenicity island 1 (TTSS-SPI1) colonize the interior of Medicago spp. In higher numbers than the wild type. Arabidopsis defense response-related genotypes indicated that only salicylic acid (SA)-independent defense responses contribute to restricting colonization by Kp342. In contrast, colonization by S. typhimurium is affected by both SA-dependent and -independent responses. S. typhimurium mutants further delineated these responses, suggesting that both flagella and TTSS-SPI1 effectors can be recognized. Flagella act primarily through SA-independent responses (compromising SA accumulation still affected colonization in the absence of flagella). Removal of a TTSS-SPI1 effector resulted in hypercolonization regardless of whether the genotype was affected in either SA-dependent or SA-independent responses. Consistent with these results, S. typhimurium activates the promoter of PR1, a SA-dependent pathogenesisrelated gene, while S. typhimurium mutants lacking the TTSS-SPI1 failed to activate this promoter. These observations suggest approaches to reduce contamination of raw produce by human enteric pathogens and to increase the number of growth-promoting bacteria in plants.
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
GUS fusions: beta-glucuronidase as a sensitive and versatile gene fusion marker in higher plants.
Jefferson, R. A., Kavanagh, T. A., & Bevan, M. W. (1987) · The EMBO Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1460-2075.1987.tb02730.x · Cited by 9,844
Gómez-Gómez, L., & Boller, T. (2000) · Molecular Cell · doi:10.1016/s1097-2765(00)80265-8 · Cited by 2,280
Plants have a sensitive perception system for the most conserved domain of bacterial flagellin
Felix, G., Duran, J. D., Volko, S., & Boller, T. (1999) · The Plant Journal · doi:10.1046/j.1365-313x.1999.00265.x · Cited by 1,715
Inducers of Plant Systemic Acquired Resistance Regulate NPR1 Function through Redox Changes
Mou, Z., Fan, W., & Dong, X. (2003) · Cell · doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00429-x · Cited by 1,568
A Novel Signaling Pathway Controlling Induced Systemic Resistance in Arabidopsis
Pieterse, C. M. J., van Wees, S. C. M., van Pelt, J. A., Knoester, M., Laan, R., Gerrits, H., Weisbeek, P. J., & van Loon, L. C. (1998) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1105/tpc.10.9.1571 · Cited by 1,207
Wang, R. F., & Kushner, S. R. (1991) · Gene · doi:10.1016/0378-1119(91)90366-j · Cited by 1,170
Sundaresan, V, Springer, P., Volpe, T., Haward, S., Jones, J. D., Dean, C., Ma, H., & Martienssen, R. (1995) · Genes & Development · doi:10.1101/gad.9.14.1797 · Cited by 720
Després, C., Chubak, C., Rochon, A., Clark, R., Bethune, T., Desveaux, D., & Fobert, P. R. (2003) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1105/tpc.012849 · Cited by 591
Cao, H., Li, X., & Dong, X. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.11.6531 · Cited by 575
Infections Associated with Eating Seed Sprouts: An International Concern
Taormina, P. J., Beuchat, L. R., & Slutsker, L. (1999) · Emerging Infectious Diseases · doi:10.3201/eid0505.990503 · Cited by 410
Cited by
Compant, S., Clément, C., & Sessitsch, A. (2010) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.11.024 · Cited by 2,318
Fitness of Human Enteric Pathogens on Plants and Implications for Food Safety
Brandl, M. T. (2006) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.44.070505.143359 · Cited by 587
Ecology and Genomic Insights into Plant-Pathogenic and Plant-Nonpathogenic Endophytes
Brader, G., Compant, S., Vescio, K., Mitter, B., Trognitz, F., Ma, L.-J., & Sessitsch, A. (2017) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-080516-035641 · Cited by 482
Fouts, D. E., Tyler, H. L., DeBoy, R. T., Daugherty, S., Ren, Q., Badger, J. H., Durkin, A. S., Huot, H., Shrivastava, S., Kothari, S., et al. (2008) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000141 · Cited by 293
Self-citationMeldau, D. G., Meldau, S., Hoang, L. H., Underberg, S., Wunsche, H., & Baldwin, I. T. (2013) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1105/tpc.113.114744 · Cited by 284
Metadata
- Authors
- Iniguez, A. L., Dong, Y., Carter, H. D., Ahmer, B. M. M., Stone, J. M., & Triplett, E. W.
- Venue
- Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions®
- Publisher
- Scientific Societies
- Published
- 2005-02
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 169-178
- ISSN
- 0894-0282 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-7706
- OpenAlex
- W2132642833
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 11.85
- 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: Regulation of Enteric Endophytic Bacterial Colonization by Plant Defenses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1094/mpmi-18-0169
- The paper
- Iniguez, A. L., Dong, Y., Carter, H. D., Ahmer, B. M. M., Stone, J. M., & Triplett, E. W. (2005). Regulation of Enteric Endophytic Bacterial Colonization by Plant Defenses. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions®. https://doi.org/10.1094/mpmi-18-0169
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.