The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Genome Comparison of Barley and Maize Smut Fungi Reveals Targeted Loss of RNA Silencing Components and Species-Specific Presence of Transposable Elements
Open accessAbstract
Ustilago hordei is a biotrophic parasite of barley (Hordeum vulgare). After seedling infection, the fungus persists in the plant until head emergence when fungal spores develop and are released from sori formed at kernel positions. The 26.1-Mb U. hordei genome contains 7113 protein encoding genes with high synteny to the smaller genomes of the related, maize-infecting smut fungi Ustilago maydis and Sporisorium reilianum but has a larger repeat content that affected genome evolution at important loci, including mating-type and effector loci. The U. hordei genome encodes components involved in RNA interference and heterochromatin formation, normally involved in genome defense, that are lacking in the U. maydis genome due to clean excision events. These excision events were possibly a result of former presence of repetitive DNA and of an efficient homologous recombination system in U. maydis. We found evidence of repeat-induced point mutations in the genome of U. hordei, indicating that smut fungi use different strategies to counteract the deleterious effects of repetitive DNA. The complement of U. hordei effector genes is comparable to the other two smuts but reveals differences in family expansion and clustering. The availability of the genome sequence will facilitate the identification of genes responsible for virulence and evolution of smut fungi on their respective hosts.
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
Tandem repeats finder: a program to analyze DNA sequences
Benson, G. (1999) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/27.2.573 · Cited by 9,374
CAP3: A DNA Sequence Assembly Program
Huang, X., & Madan, A. (1999) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.9.9.868 · Cited by 5,261
Evolutionary divergence and convergence in proteins.
ZUCKERKANDL, E., & PAULING, L. (1965) · Evolving Genes and Proteins · doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-2734-4.50017-6 · Cited by 3,020
Transposable elements and the epigenetic regulation of the genome
Slotkin, R. K., & Martienssen, R. (2007) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2072 · Cited by 2,044
Assessing the gene space in draft genomes
Parra, G., Bradnam, K., Ning, Z., Keane, T., & Korf, I. (2009) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkn916 · Cited by 395 · cited 2×
“highly conserved core eukaryotic genes present in higher eukaryotes (Aguileta et al., 2008; Parra et al., 2009).”
BackgroundMethodGenome variation in Cryptococcus gattii, an emerging pathogen of immunocompetent hosts
D’Souza, C. A., Kronstad, J. W., Taylor, G., Warren, R., Yuen, M., Hu, G., Jung, W. H., Sham, A., Kidd, S. E., Tangen, K., et al. (2011) · mBio · doi:10.1128/mbio.00342-10 · Cited by 202
Cited by
Fungal Effectors and Plant Susceptibility
Lo Presti, L., Lanver, D., Schweizer, G., Tanaka, S., Liang, L., Tollot, M., Zuccaro, A., Reissmann, S., & Kahmann, R. (2015) · Annual Review of Plant Biology · doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-043014-114623 · Cited by 1,249
Self-citationEvolution and genome architecture in fungal plant pathogens
Möller, M., & Stukenbrock, E. H. (2017) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro.2017.76 · Cited by 432
Improved prediction of fungal effector proteins from secretomes with EffectorP 2.0
Sperschneider, J., Dodds, P. N., Gardiner, D. M., Singh, K. B., & Taylor, J. M. (2018) · Molecular Plant Pathology · doi:10.1111/mpp.12682 · Cited by 403
One stop shop: backbones trees for important phytopathogenic genera: I (2014)
Hyde, K. D., Nilsson, R. H., Alias, S. A., Ariyawansa, H. A., Blair, J. E., Cai, L., de Cock, A. W. A. M., Dissanayake, A. J., Glockling, S. L., Goonasekara, I. D., et al. (2014) · Fungal Diversity · doi:10.1007/s13225-014-0298-1 · Cited by 379
Mueller, A. N., Ziemann, S., Treitschke, S., Aßmann, D., & Doehlemann, G. (2013) · PLoS Pathogens · doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1003177 · Cited by 275
Metadata
- Authors
- Laurie, J. D., Ali, S., Linning, R., Mannhaupt, G., Wong, P., Güldener, U., Münsterkötter, M., Moore, R., Kahmann, R., Bakkeren, G., & Schirawski, J.
- Venue
- The Plant Cell
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-05
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1733-1745
- ISSN
- 1040-4651 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-298X
- OpenAlex
- W2165758921
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 6.45
- 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: Genome Comparison of Barley and Maize Smut Fungi Reveals Targeted Loss of RNA Silencing Components and Species-Specific Presence of Transposable Elements. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1105/tpc.112.097261
- The paper
- Laurie, J. D., Ali, S., Linning, R., Mannhaupt, G., Wong, P., Güldener, U., Münsterkötter, M., Moore, R., Kahmann, R., Bakkeren, G., & Schirawski, J. (2012). Genome Comparison of Barley and Maize Smut Fungi Reveals Targeted Loss of RNA Silencing Components and Species-Specific Presence of Transposable Elements. The Plant Cell. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.112.097261
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.