Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,409

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Top 10 plant pathogenic bacteria in molecular plant pathology

Open access
MANSFIELD, JOHN, GENIN, STEPHANE, MAGORI, SHIMPEI, CITOVSKY, VITALY, SRIARIYANUM, MALINEE, RONALD, PAMELA, DOW, MAX, VERDIER, VALÉRIE, BEER, STEVEN V., MACHADO, MARCOS A., TOTH, IAN, SALMOND, GEORGE, FOSTER, GARY D.·2012·Molecular Plant Pathology

Abstract

SUMMARY: Many plant bacteriologists, if not all, feel that their particular microbe should appear in any list of the most important bacterial plant pathogens. However, to our knowledge, no such list exists. The aim of this review was to survey all bacterial pathologists with an association with the journal Molecular Plant Pathology and ask them to nominate the bacterial pathogens they would place in a ‘Top 10’ based on scientific/economic importance. The survey generated 458 votes from the international community, and allowed the construction of a Top 10 bacterial plant pathogen list. The list includes, in rank order: (1) Pseudomonas syringae pathovars; (2) Ralstonia solanacearum ; (3) Agrobacterium tumefaciens ; (4) Xanthomonas oryzae pv . oryzae ; (5) Xanthomonas campestris pathovars; (6) Xanthomonas axonopodis pathovars; (7) Erwinia amylovora ; (8) Xylella fastidiosa ; (9) Dickeya (dadantii and solani) ; (10) Pectobacterium carotovorum (and Pectobacterium atrosepticum ). Bacteria garnering honourable mentions for just missing out on the Top 10 include Clavibacter michiganensis ( michiganensis and sepedonicus ), Pseudomonas savastanoi and Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus . This review article presents a short section on each bacterium in the Top 10 list and its importance, with the intention of initiating discussion and debate amongst the plant bacteriology community, as well as laying down a benchmark. It will be interesting to see, in future years, how perceptions change and which bacterial pathogens enter and leave the 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2012.00804.x

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.

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

Cited by

See all 2,409

Metadata

Authors
MANSFIELD, J., GENIN, S., MAGORI, S., CITOVSKY, V., SRIARIYANUM, M., RONALD, P., DOW, M., VERDIER, V., BEER, S. V., MACHADO, M. A., TOTH, I., SALMOND, G., & FOSTER, G. D.
Venue
Molecular Plant Pathology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-06-05
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
614-629
ISSN
  • 1364-3703 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-6722
OpenAlex
W1915578613
Cited by
2,409
References
0
FWCI
64.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Top 10 plant pathogenic bacteria in molecular plant pathology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2012.00804.x
The paper
MANSFIELD, J., GENIN, S., MAGORI, S., CITOVSKY, V., SRIARIYANUM, M., RONALD, P., DOW, M., VERDIER, V., BEER, S. V., MACHADO, M. A., TOTH, I., SALMOND, G., & FOSTER, G. D. (2012). Top 10 plant pathogenic bacteria in molecular plant pathology. Molecular Plant Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1364-3703.2012.00804.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.