Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 474

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative Transcriptional Profiling of Two Contrasting Rice Genotypes under Salinity Stress during the Vegetative Growth Stage

Walia, Harkamal, Wilson, Clyde, Condamine, Pascal, Liu, Xuan, Ismail, Abdelbagi M., Zeng, Linghe, Wanamaker, Steve I., Mandal, Jayati, Xu, Jin, Cui, Xinping, Close, Timothy J.·2005·Plant Physiology

Abstract

Rice (Oryza sativa), a salt-sensitive species, has considerable genetic variation for salt tolerance within the cultivated gene pool. Two indica rice genotypes, FL478, a recombinant inbred line derived from a population developed for salinity tolerance studies, and IR29, the sensitive parent of the population, were selected for this study. We used the Affymetrix rice genome array containing 55,515 probe sets to explore the transcriptome of the salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive genotypes under control and salinity-stressed conditions during vegetative growth. Response of the sensitive genotype IR29 is characterized by induction of a relatively large number of probe sets compared to tolerant FL478. Salinity stress induced a number of genes involved in the flavonoid biosynthesis pathway in IR29 but not in FL478. Cell wall-related genes were responsive in both genotypes, suggesting cell wall restructuring is a general adaptive mechanism during salinity stress, although the two genotypes also had some differences. Additionally, the expression of genes mapping to the Saltol region of chromosome 1 were examined in both genotypes. Single-feature polymorphism analysis of expression data revealed that IR29 was the source of the Saltol region in FL478, contrary to expectation. This study provides a genome-wide transcriptional analysis of two well-characterized, genetically related rice genotypes differing in salinity tolerance during a gradually imposed salinity stress under greenhouse conditions.

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 · 10.1104/pp.105.065961

Cites

47 of 47 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 47 references

Metadata

Authors
Walia, H., Wilson, C., Condamine, P., Liu, X., Ismail, A. M., Zeng, L., Wanamaker, S. I., Mandal, J., Xu, J., Cui, X., & Close, T. J.
Venue
Plant Physiology
Published
2005-09-23
Volume
139
Issue
2
Pages
822-835
ISSN
  • 0032-0889 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2548
OpenAlex
W2159699532
Cited by
474
References
47
FWCI
18.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Comparative Transcriptional Profiling of Two Contrasting Rice Genotypes under Salinity Stress during the Vegetative Growth Stage. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1104/pp.105.065961
The paper
Walia, H., Wilson, C., Condamine, P., Liu, X., Ismail, A. M., Zeng, L., Wanamaker, S. I., Mandal, J., Xu, J., Cui, X., & Close, T. J. (2005). Comparative Transcriptional Profiling of Two Contrasting Rice Genotypes under Salinity Stress during the Vegetative Growth Stage. Plant Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.105.065961

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.