The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Endophytic Actinobacteria Induce Defense Pathways in Arabidopsis thaliana
Open accessAbstract
Endophytic actinobacteria, isolated from healthy wheat tissue, which are capable of suppressing a number wheat fungal pathogens both in vitro and in planta, were investigated for the ability to activate key genes in the systemic acquired resistance (SAR) or the jasmonate/ethylene (JA/ET) pathways in Arabidopsis thaliana. Inoculation of A. thaliana (Col-0) with selected endophytic strains induced a low level of SAR and JA/ET gene expression, measured using quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Upon pathogen challenge, endophyte-treated plants demonstrated a higher abundance of defense gene expression compared with the non-endophyte-treated controls. Resistance to the bacterial pathogen Erwinia carotovora subsp. carotovora required the JA/ET pathway. On the other hand, resistance to the fungal pathogen Fusarium oxysporum involved primarily the SAR pathway. The endophytic actinobacteria appear to be able to “prime” both the SAR and JA/ET pathways, upregulating genes in either pathway depending on the infecting pathogen. Culture filtrates of the endophytic actinobacteria were investigated for the ability to also activate defense pathways. The culture filtrate of Micromonospora sp. strain EN43 grown in a minimal medium resulted in the induction of the SAR pathway; however, when grown in a complex medium, the JA/ET pathway was activated. Further analysis using Streptomyces sp. strain EN27 and defense-compromised mutants of A. thaliana indicated that resistance to E. carotovora subsp. carotovora occurred via an NPR1-independent pathway and required salicylic acid whereas the JA/ET signaling molecules were not essential. In contrast, resistance to F. oxysporum mediated by Streptomyces sp. strain EN27 occurred via an NPR1-dependent pathway but also required salicylic acid and was JA/ET independent.
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
Analysis of Relative Gene Expression Data Using Real-Time Quantitative PCR and the 2−ΔΔCT Method
Livak, K. J., & Schmittgen, T. D. (2001) · Methods · doi:10.1006/meth.2001.1262 · Cited by 180,860
A new mathematical model for relative quantification in real-time RT-PCR
Pfaffl, M. W. (2001) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/29.9.e45 · Cited by 34,610
Genome-Wide Insertional Mutagenesis of Arabidopsis thaliana
Alonso, J. M., Stepanova, A. N., Leisse, T. J., Kim, C. J., Chen, H., Shinn, P., Stevenson, D. K., Zimmerman, J., Barajas, P., Cheuk, R., et al. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1086391 · Cited by 5,102
Contrasting Mechanisms of Defense Against Biotrophic and Necrotrophic Pathogens
Glazebrook, J. (2005) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.43.040204.135923 · Cited by 4,367
Durrant, W. E., & Dong, X. (2004) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.42.040803.140421 · Cited by 3,184
Abeles, F. B. (1973) · Cited by 2,876
VAN LOON, L. C., & VAN STRIEN, E. A. (1999) · Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology · doi:10.1006/pmpp.1999.0213 · Cited by 1,950
Ethylene Biosynthesis and Signaling Networks
Wang, K. L.-C., Li, H., & Ecker, J. R. (2002) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1105/tpc.001768 · Cited by 1,828
BIOSYNTHESIS AND ACTION OF JASMONATES IN PLANTS
Creelman, R. A., & Mullet, J. E. (1997) · Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology · doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.48.1.355 · Cited by 1,779
Induced Systemic Resistance and Promotion of Plant Growth by Bacillus spp.
Kloepper, J. W., Ryu, C.-M., & Zhang, S. (2004) · Phytopathology® · doi:10.1094/phyto.2004.94.11.1259 · Cited by 1,691
Cited by
Plant beneficial endophytic bacteria: Mechanisms, diversity, host range and genetic determinants
Afzal, I., Shinwari, Z. K., Sikandar, S., & Shahzad, S. (2019) · Microbiological Research · doi:10.1016/j.micres.2019.02.001 · Cited by 1,010
Living inside plants: bacterial endophytes
Reinhold-Hurek, B., & Hurek, T. (2011) · Current Opinion in Plant Biology · doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2011.04.004 · Cited by 817
Badri, D. V., Chaparro, J. M., Zhang, R., Shen, Q., & Vivanco, J. M. (2013) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.m112.433300 · Cited by 578
Plant developmental stage drives the differentiation in ecological role of the maize microbiome
Xiong, C., Singh, B. K., He, J.-Z., Han, Y.-L., Li, P.-P., Wan, L.-H., Meng, G.-Z., Liu, S.-Y., Wang, J.-T., Wu, C.-F., et al. (2021) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-021-01118-6 · Cited by 438
Jasmonate signaling in plant interactions with resistance-inducing beneficial microbes
Van der Ent, S., Van Wees, S. C. M., & Pieterse, C. M. J. (2009) · Phytochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.phytochem.2009.06.009 · Cited by 443
Metadata
- Authors
- Conn, V. M., Walker, A. R., & Franco, C. M. M.
- Venue
- Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions®
- Publisher
- Scientific Societies
- Published
- 2008-02
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 208-218
- ISSN
- 0894-0282 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-7706
- OpenAlex
- W1974235911
- Cited by
- 356
- References
- 46
- FWCI
- 13.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Endophytic Actinobacteria Induce Defense Pathways in Arabidopsis thaliana. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1094/mpmi-21-2-0208
- The paper
- Conn, V. M., Walker, A. R., & Franco, C. M. M. (2008). Endophytic Actinobacteria Induce Defense Pathways in Arabidopsis thaliana. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions®. https://doi.org/10.1094/mpmi-21-2-0208
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.