The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Induced Plant Defense Responses against Chewing Insects. Ethylene Signaling Reduces Resistance of Arabidopsis against Egyptian Cotton Worm But Not Diamondback Moth
Open accessAbstract
The induction of plant defenses by insect feeding is regulated via multiple signaling cascades. One of them, ethylene signaling, increases susceptibility of Arabidopsis to the generalist herbivore Egyptian cotton worm (Spodoptera littoralis; Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). The hookless1 mutation, which affects a downstream component of ethylene signaling, conferred resistance to Egyptian cotton worm as compared with wild-type plants. Likewise,ein2, a mutant in a central component of the ethylene signaling pathway, caused enhanced resistance to Egyptian cotton worm that was similar in magnitude to hookless1. Moreover, pretreatment of plants with ethephon (2-chloroethanephosphonic acid), a chemical that releases ethylene, elevated plant susceptibility to Egyptian cotton worm. By contrast, these mutations in the ethylene-signaling pathway had no detectable effects on diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) feeding. It is surprising that this is not due to nonactivation of defense signaling, because diamondback moth does induce genes that relate to wound-response pathways. Of these wound-related genes, jasmonic acid regulates a novel β-glucosidase 1 (BGL1), whereas ethylene controls a putative calcium-binding elongation factor hand protein. These results suggest that a specialist insect herbivore triggers general wound-response pathways in Arabidopsis but, unlike a generalist herbivore, does not react to ethylene-mediated physiological changes.
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
New families in the classification of glycosyl hydrolases based on amino acid sequence similarities
Henrissat, B., & Bairoch, A. (1993) · Biochemical Journal · doi:10.1042/bj2930781 · Cited by 1,974
Cited by
Plant resistance towards insect herbivores: a dynamic interaction
Gatehouse, J. A. (2002) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00519.x · Cited by 704
PLANT-MEDIATED INTERACTIONS BETWEEN PATHOGENIC MICROORGANISMS AND HERBIVOROUS ARTHROPODS
Stout, M. J., Thaler, J. S., & Thomma, B. P. H. J. (2006) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151117 · Cited by 463
Plant–arthropod interactions: who is the winner?
Stahl, E., Hilfiker, O., & Reymond, P. (2018) · The Plant Journal · doi:10.1111/tpj.13773 · Cited by 164
Metadata
- Authors
- Stotz, H. U., Pittendrigh, B. R., Kroymann, J., Weniger, K., Fritsche, J., Bauke, A., & Mitchell-Olds, T.
- Venue
- Plant Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-11-01
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1007-1018
- ISSN
- 0032-0889 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2548
- OpenAlex
- W2159643178
- Cited by
- 265
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 25.83
- 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: Induced Plant Defense Responses against Chewing Insects. Ethylene Signaling Reduces Resistance of Arabidopsis against Egyptian Cotton Worm But Not Diamondback Moth. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1104/pp.124.3.1007
- The paper
- Stotz, H. U., Pittendrigh, B. R., Kroymann, J., Weniger, K., Fritsche, J., Bauke, A., & Mitchell-Olds, T. (2000). Induced Plant Defense Responses against Chewing Insects. Ethylene Signaling Reduces Resistance of Arabidopsis against Egyptian Cotton Worm But Not Diamondback Moth. Plant Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.124.3.1007
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.