Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 374

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Arabidopsis Transcriptome Changes in Response to Phloem-Feeding Silverleaf Whitefly Nymphs. Similarities and Distinctions in Responses to Aphids

Open access
Kempema, Louisa A., Cui, Xinping, Holzer, Frances M., Walling, Linda L.·2007·Plant Physiology

Abstract

Phloem-feeding pests cause extensive crop damage throughout the world, yet little is understood about how plants perceive and defend themselves from these threats. The silverleaf whitefly (SLWF; Bemisia tabaci type B) is a good model for studying phloem-feeding insect-plant interactions, as SLWF nymphs cause little wounding and have a long, continuous interaction with the plant. Using the Affymetrix ATH1 GeneChip to monitor the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) transcriptome, 700 transcripts were found to be up-regulated and 556 down-regulated by SLWF nymphs. Closer examination of the regulation of secondary metabolite (glucosinolate) and defense pathway genes after SLWF-instar feeding shows that responses were qualitatively and quantitatively different from chewing insects and aphids. In addition to the RNA profile distinctions, analysis of SLWF performance on wild-type and phytoalexin-deficient4 (pad4) mutants suggests aphid and SLWF interactions with Arabidopsis were distinct. While pad4-1 mutants were more susceptible to aphids, SLWF development on pad4-1 and wild-type plants was similar. Furthermore, although jasmonic acid genes were repressed and salicylic acid-regulated genes were induced after SLWF feeding, cytological staining of SLWF-infested tissue showed that pathogen defenses, such as localized cell death and hydrogen peroxide accumulation, were not observed. Like aphid and fungal pathogens, callose synthase gene RNAs accumulated and callose deposition was observed in SLWF-infested tissue. These results provide a more comprehensive understanding of phloem-feeding insect-plant interactions and distinguish SLWF global responses.

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.106.090662

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 374

Metadata

Authors
Kempema, L. A., Cui, X., Holzer, F. M., & Walling, L. L.
Venue
Plant Physiology
Published
2006-12-22
Volume
143
Issue
2
Pages
849-865
ISSN
  • 0032-0889 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2548
OpenAlex
W2004575956
Cited by
374
References
4
FWCI
22.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Arabidopsis Transcriptome Changes in Response to Phloem-Feeding Silverleaf Whitefly Nymphs. Similarities and Distinctions in Responses to Aphids. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1104/pp.106.090662
The paper
Kempema, L. A., Cui, X., Holzer, F. M., & Walling, L. L. (2007). Arabidopsis Transcriptome Changes in Response to Phloem-Feeding Silverleaf Whitefly Nymphs. Similarities and Distinctions in Responses to Aphids. Plant Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.106.090662

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.