The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Top 10 plant pathogenic bacteria in molecular plant pathology
Open accessAbstract
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.
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
Cited by
A review on the plant microbiome: Ecology, functions, and emerging trends in microbial application
Compant, S., Samad, A., Faist, H., & Sessitsch, A. (2019) · Journal of Advanced Research · doi:10.1016/j.jare.2019.03.004 · Cited by 1,643
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
Competition for iron drives phytopathogen control by natural rhizosphere microbiomes
Gu, S., Wei, Z., Shao, Z., Friman, V.-P., Cao, K., Yang, T., Kramer, J., Wang, X., Li, M., Mei, X., et al. (2020) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41564-020-0719-8 · Cited by 544
AlphaFold-Multimer predicts cross-kingdom interactions at the plant-pathogen interface
Homma, F., Huang, J., & van der Hoorn, R. A. L. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-41721-9 · Cited by 176
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.