Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 509

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Conserved Transcript Pattern in Response to a Specialist and a Generalist Herbivorew⃞

Open access
Reymond, Philippe, Bodenhausen, Natacha, Van Poecke, Remco M.P., Krishnamurthy, Venkatesh, Dicke, Marcel, Farmer, Edward E.·2004·The Plant Cell

Abstract

Transcript patterns elicited in response to attack reveal, at the molecular level, how plants respond to aggressors. These patterns are fashioned both by inflicted physical damage as well as by biological components displayed or released by the attacker. Different types of attacking organisms might therefore be expected to elicit different transcription programs in the host. Using a large-scale DNA microarray, we characterized gene expression in damaged as well as in distal Arabidopsis thaliana leaves in response to the specialist insect, Pieris rapae. More than 100 insect-responsive genes potentially involved in defense were identified, including genes involved in pathogenesis, indole glucosinolate metabolism, detoxification and cell survival, and signal transduction. Of these 114 genes, 111 were induced in Pieris feeding, and only three were repressed. Expression patterns in distal leaves were markedly similar to those of local leaves. Analysis of wild-type and jasmonate mutant plants, coupled with jasmonate treatment, showed that between 67 and 84% of Pieris-regulated gene expression was controlled, totally or in part, by the jasmonate pathway. This was correlated with increased larval performance on the coronatine insensitive1 glabrous1 (coi1-1 gl1) mutant. Independent mutations in COI1 and GL1 led to a faster larval weight gain, but the gl1 mutation had relatively little effect on the expression of the insect-responsive genes examined. Finally, we compared transcript patterns in Arabidopis in response to larvae of the specialist P. rapae and to a generalist insect, Spodoptera littoralis. Surprisingly, given the complex nature of insect salivary components and reported differences between species, almost identical transcript profiles were observed. This study also provides a robustly characterized gene set for the further investigation of plant–insect interaction.

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 · 10.1105/tpc.104.026120

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 509

Metadata

Authors
Reymond, P., Bodenhausen, N., Van Poecke, R. M. P., Krishnamurthy, V., Dicke, M., & Farmer, E. E.
Venue
The Plant Cell
Published
2004-11-01
Volume
16
Issue
11
Pages
3132-3147
ISSN
  • 1040-4651 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-298X
OpenAlex
W2144748550
Cited by
509
References
2
FWCI
42.11
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: A Conserved Transcript Pattern in Response to a Specialist and a Generalist Herbivorew⃞. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1105/tpc.104.026120
The paper
Reymond, P., Bodenhausen, N., Van Poecke, R. M. P., Krishnamurthy, V., Dicke, M., & Farmer, E. E. (2004). A Conserved Transcript Pattern in Response to a Specialist and a Generalist Herbivorew⃞. The Plant Cell. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.104.026120

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.