The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Top 10 fungal pathogens in molecular plant pathology
Open accessAbstract
SUMMARY: The aim of this review was to survey all fungal pathologists with an association with the journal Molecular Plant Pathology and ask them to nominate which fungal pathogens they would place in a ‘Top 10’ based on scientific/economic importance. The survey generated 495 votes from the international community, and resulted in the generation of a Top 10 fungal plant pathogen list for Molecular Plant Pathology . The Top 10 list includes, in rank order, (1) Magnaporthe oryzae ; (2) Botrytis cinerea ; (3) Puccinia spp.; (4) Fusarium graminearum ; (5) Fusarium oxysporum ; (6) Blumeria graminis ; (7) Mycosphaerella graminicola ; (8) Colletotrichum spp.; (9) Ustilago maydis ; (10) Melampsora lini , with honourable mentions for fungi just missing out on the Top 10, including Phakopsora pachyrhizi and Rhizoctonia solani . This article presents a short resumé of each fungus in the Top 10 list and its importance, with the intent of initiating discussion and debate amongst the plant mycology community, as well as laying down a bench‐mark. It will be interesting to see in future years how perceptions change and what fungi will comprise any future Top 10.
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
Colletotrichum: Biology, Pathology and Control
Uecker, F. A., Bailey, J. A., & Jegor, M. J. (1993) · Mycologia · doi:10.2307/3760628 · Cited by 752
Cited by
Colletotrichum – current status and future directions
Cannon, P. F., Damm, U., Johnston, P. R., & Weir, B. S. (2012) · Studies in Mycology · doi:10.3114/sim0014 · Cited by 1,105
The Top 10 oomycete pathogens in molecular plant pathology
Kamoun, S., Furzer, O., Jones, J. D. G., Judelson, H. S., Ali, G. S., Dalio, R. J. D., Roy, S. G., Schena, L., Zambounis, A., Panabières, F., et al. (2015) · Molecular Plant Pathology · doi:10.1111/mpp.12190 · Cited by 991
Plant–Pathogen Warfare under Changing Climate Conditions
Velásquez, A. C., Castroverde, C. D. M., & He, S. Y. (2018) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2018.03.054 · Cited by 970
Growing a circular economy with fungal biotechnology: a white paper
Meyer, V., Basenko, E. Y., Benz, J. P., Braus, G. H., Caddick, M. X., Csukai, M., de Vries, R. P., Endy, D., Frisvad, J. C., Gunde-Cimerman, N., et al. (2020) · Fungal Biology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1186/s40694-020-00095-z · Cited by 515
“A list of the ten most important fungal pathogens of plants published in 2012 [91] is outdated.”
BackgroundRaveau, R., Fontaine, J., & Lounès-Hadj Sahraoui, A. (2020) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods9030365 · Cited by 482
Metadata
- Authors
- 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., & FOSTER, G. D.
- Venue
- Molecular Plant Pathology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-04-04
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 414-430
- ISSN
- 1364-3703 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-6722
- OpenAlex
- W2118751052
- Cited by
- 4,692
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 44.86
- 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: The Top 10 fungal pathogens in molecular plant pathology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2011.00783.x
- The paper
- 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., & FOSTER, G. D. (2012). The Top 10 fungal pathogens in molecular plant pathology. Molecular Plant Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2011.00783.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.
