The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Differential Induction of Systemic Resistance in Arabidopsis by Biocontrol Bacteria
Open accessAbstract
Selected nonpathogenic, root-colonizing bacteria are able to elicit induced systemic resistance (ISR) in plants. To elucidate the molecular mechanisms underlying this type of systemic resistance, an Arabidopsis-based model system was developed in which Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. raphani were used as challenging pathogens. In Arabidopsis thaliana ecotypes Columbia and Landsberg erecta, colonization of the rhizosphere by P. fluorescens strain WCS417r induced systemic resistance against both pathogens. In contrast, ecotype RLD did not respond to WCS417r treatment, whereas all three ecotypes expressed systemic acquired resistance upon treatment with salicylic acid (SA). P. fluorescens strain WCS374r, previously shown to induce ISR in radish, did not elicit ISR in Arabidopsis. The opposite was found for P. putida strain WCS358r, which induced ISR in Arabidopsis but not in radish. These results demonstrate that rhizosphere pseudomonads are differentially active in eliciting ISR in related plant species. The outer membrane lipopolysaccharide (LPS) of WCS417r is the main ISR-inducing determinant in radish and carnation, and LPS-containing cell walls also elicit ISR in Arabidopsis. However, mutant WCS417rOA¯, lacking the O-antigenic side chain of the LPS, induced levels of protection similar to those induced by wild-type WCS417r. This indicates that ISR-inducing bacteria produce more than a single factor that trigger ISR in Arabidopsis. Furthermore, WCS417r and WCS358r induced protection in both wildtype Arabidopsis and SA-nonaccumulating NahG plants without activating pathogenesis-related gene expression. This suggests that elicitation of an SA-independent signaling pathway is a characteristic feature of ISR-inducing biocontrol bacteria.
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
Cited by
Induced systemic resistance by beneficial microbes
Pieterse, C. M. J., Zamioudis, C., Berendsen, R. L., Weller, D. M., Van Wees, S. C. M., & Bakker, P. A. H. M. (2014) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102340 · Cited by 3,272
Self-citationCompant, S., Duffy, B., Nowak, J., Clément, C., & Barka, E. A. (2005) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.71.9.4951-4959.2005 · Cited by 2,640
Microbial interactions and biocontrol in the rhizosphere
Whipps, J. M. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jexbot/52.suppl_1.487 · Cited by 1,934
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
Self-citationSystemic Acquired Resistance and Induced Systemic Resistance in Conventional Agriculture
Vallad, G. E., & Goodman, R. M. (2004) · Crop Science · doi:10.2135/cropsci2004.1920 · Cited by 819
Metadata
- Authors
- Van Wees, S. C. M., Pieterse, C. M. J., Trijssenaar, A., Van 't Westende, Y. A. M., Hartog, F., & Van Loon, L. C.
- Venue
- Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions®
- Publisher
- Scientific Societies
- Published
- 1997-08
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 716-724
- ISSN
- 0894-0282 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-7706
- OpenAlex
- W2161349952
- Cited by
- 403
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.28
- 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: Differential Induction of Systemic Resistance in Arabidopsis by Biocontrol Bacteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1094/mpmi.1997.10.6.716
- The paper
- Van Wees, S. C. M., Pieterse, C. M. J., Trijssenaar, A., Van 't Westende, Y. A. M., Hartog, F., & Van Loon, L. C. (1997). Differential Induction of Systemic Resistance in Arabidopsis by Biocontrol Bacteria. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions®. https://doi.org/10.1094/mpmi.1997.10.6.716
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.