The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Molecular analysis of poplar defense against herbivory: comparison of wound‐ and insect elicitor‐induced gene expression
Abstract
In order to characterize defense responses of hybrid poplar (Populus trichocarpax P. deltoides), we profiled leaf transcript patterns elicited by wounding and by regurgitant from forest tent caterpillar (FTC; Malacosoma disstria), a Lepidopteran defoliator of poplars. Macroarrays were used to compare transcript profiles. Both FTC-regurgitant (FTC-R) and mechanical wounding with pliers elicited expression of a variety of genes, and for these genes our analysis indicated that these treatments induced qualitatively similar responses. Similarly, a comparison of responses of directly treated and systemically induced leaves indicated extensive overlap in the sets of induced genes. FTC-R was found to contain the insect-derived elicitor volicitin. The simulated herbivory treatments resulted in the induction of genes involved in poplar defense and secondary metabolism. We also identified wound-responsive genes with roles in primary metabolism, including a putative invertase, lipase, and acyl-activating enzyme; some of these genes may have roles in defense signaling. In addition, we found three unknown genes containing a ZIM motif which may represent novel transcription factors.
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
Statistical significance for genomewide studies
Storey, J. D., & Tibshirani, R. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1530509100 · Cited by 9,692
Plant resistance towards insect herbivores: a dynamic interaction
Gatehouse, J. A. (2002) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2002.00519.x · Cited by 704
Cited by
Long-distance signalling in plant defence
Heil, M., & Ton, J. (2008) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2008.03.005 · Cited by 608
Why Does Herbivore Attack Reconfigure Primary Metabolism?
Schwachtje, J., & Baldwin, I. T. (2008) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.107.112490 · Cited by 346
Plant–arthropod interactions: who is the winner?
Stahl, E., Hilfiker, O., & Reymond, P. (2018) · The Plant Journal · doi:10.1111/tpj.13773 · Cited by 164
Metadata
- Authors
- Major, I. T., & Constabel, C. P.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-09-19
- Volume
- 172
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 617-635
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2146611572
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 21.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Molecular analysis of poplar defense against herbivory: comparison of wound‐ and insect elicitor‐induced gene expression. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01877.x
- The paper
- Major, I. T., & Constabel, C. P. (2006). Molecular analysis of poplar defense against herbivory: comparison of wound‐ and insect elicitor‐induced gene expression. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01877.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.