The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Top 10 plant‐parasitic nematodes in molecular plant pathology
Open accessAbstract
Summary: The aim of this review was to undertake a survey of researchers working with plant‐parasitic nematodes in order to determine a ‘top 10’ list of these pathogens based on scientific and economic importance. Any such list will not be definitive as economic importance will vary depending on the region of the world in which a researcher is based. However, care was taken to include researchers from as many parts of the world as possible when carrying out the survey. The top 10 list emerging from the survey is composed of: (1) root‐knot nematodes ( M eloidogyne spp.); (2) cyst nematodes ( H eterodera and G lobodera spp.); (3) root lesion nematodes ( P ratylenchus spp.); (4) the burrowing nematode R adopholus similis ; (5) D itylenchus dipsaci ; (6) the pine wilt nematode B ursaphelenchus xylophilus ; (7) the reniform nematode R otylenchulus reniformis ; (8) X iphinema index (the only virus vector nematode to make the list); (9) N acobbus aberrans ; and (10) A phelenchoides besseyi . The biology of each nematode (or nematode group) is reviewed briefly.
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
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
Self-citationMetabolomics as an Emerging Tool for the Study of Plant–Pathogen Interactions
Castro-Moretti, F. R., Gentzel, I. N., Mackey, D., & Alonso, A. P. (2020) · Metabolites · doi:10.3390/metabo10020052 · Cited by 269
Forghani, F., & Hajihassani, A. (2020) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.01125 · Cited by 236
Maleita, C., Esteves, I., Chim, R., Fonseca, L., Braga, M. E. M., Abrantes, I., & de Sousa, H. C. (2017) · ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering · doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b00039 · Cited by 58
Khan, A., Ahmad, G., Haris, M., & Khan, A. A. (2023) · Gesunde Pflanzen · doi:10.1007/s10343-022-00679-2 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Jones, J. T., Haegeman, A., Danchin, E. G. J., Gaur, H. S., Helder, J., Jones, M. G. K., Kikuchi, T., Manzanilla‐López, R., Palomares‐Rius, J. E., Wesemael, W. M. L., & Perry, R. N.
- Venue
- Molecular Plant Pathology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 946-961
- ISSN
- 1364-3703 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-6722
- OpenAlex
- W1941885189
- Cited by
- 2,315
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 58.72
- 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: Top 10 plant‐parasitic nematodes in molecular plant pathology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/mpp.12057
- The paper
- Jones, J. T., Haegeman, A., Danchin, E. G. J., Gaur, H. S., Helder, J., Jones, M. G. K., Kikuchi, T., Manzanilla‐López, R., Palomares‐Rius, J. E., Wesemael, W. M. L., & Perry, R. N. (2013). Top 10 plant‐parasitic nematodes in molecular plant pathology. Molecular Plant Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12057
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.
