The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Histochemical and genetic analysis of host and non‐host interactions of Arabidopsis with three Botrytis species: an important role for cell death control
Open accessAbstract
SUMMARY: Susceptibility was evaluated of host and non‐host plants to three pathogenic Botrytis species: the generalist B. cinerea and the specialists B. elliptica (lily) and B. tulipae (tulip). B. tulipae was, unexpectedly, able to infect plant species other than tulip, and to a similar extent as B. cinerea. To study host and non‐host interactions in more detail, the three Botrytis species were inoculated on Arabidopsis wild‐types and 23 mutant genotypes. Disease development was monitored macroscopically by quantifying the lesion area and microscopically by bright‐field and fluorescence microscopy following histochemical staining. B. cinerea and B. tulipae were very similar in their ability to infect the tested Arabidopsis genotypes, whereas B. elliptica caused disease only on a few Arabidopsis mutant genotypes. Arabidopsis mutants with a delayed or reduced cell death response were generally more resistant to Botrytis infection, whereas mutants in which cell death was accelerated were more susceptible. Differences in susceptibility between genotypes were generally gradual. Only the camalexin‐deficient mutant pad 3 was fully susceptible to all three Botrytis species. Cellular changes were monitored during compatible and incompatible interactions. The formation of papillae, the presence of lysosome‐like vesicles and the intracellular accumulation of H 2 O 2 and nitric oxide were visualized in the infection zones using fluorescent probes. Based on histology and responses of Arabidopsis mutants, a model is proposed in which resistance against Botrytis , besides the production of camalexin, depends on the balance between cell death and survival.
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
Antimicrobial reactive oxygen and nitrogen species: concepts and controversies
Fang, F. C. (2004) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro1004 · Cited by 1,676
Cited by
The Top 10 fungal pathogens in molecular plant pathology
DEAN, R., VAN KAN, J. A. L., PRETORIUS, Z. A., HAMMOND‐KOSACK, K. E., DI PIETRO, A., SPANU, P. D., RUDD, J. J., DICKMAN, M., KAHMANN, R., ELLIS, J., et al. (2012) · Molecular Plant Pathology · doi:10.1111/j.1364-3703.2011.00783.x · Cited by 4,692
Self-citationProgrammed cell death in the plant immune system
Coll, N. S., Epple, P., & Dangl, J. L. (2011) · Cell Death & Differentiation · doi:10.1038/cdd.2011.37 · Cited by 915
Botrytis cinerea virulence factors: new insights into a necrotrophic and polyphageous pathogen
Choquer, M., Fournier, E., Kunz, C., Levis, C., Pradier, J.-M., Simon, A., & Viaud, M. (2007) · FEMS Microbiology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6968.2007.00930.x · Cited by 451
Metadata
- Authors
- VAN BAARLEN, P., WOLTERING, E. J., STAATS, M., & VAN KAN, J. A. L.
- Venue
- Molecular Plant Pathology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-11
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41-54
- ISSN
- 1364-3703 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-6722
- OpenAlex
- W2108292211
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.62
- 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: Histochemical and genetic analysis of host and non‐host interactions of Arabidopsis with three Botrytis species: an important role for cell death control. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2006.00367.x
- The paper
- VAN BAARLEN, P., WOLTERING, E. J., STAATS, M., & VAN KAN, J. A. L. (2007). Histochemical and genetic analysis of host and non‐host interactions of Arabidopsis with three Botrytis species: an important role for cell death control. Molecular Plant Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2006.00367.x
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.