Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 403

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improved prediction of fungal effector proteins from secretomes with EffectorP 2.0

Open access
Sperschneider, Jana, Dodds, Peter N., Gardiner, Donald M., Singh, Karam B., Taylor, Jennifer M.·2018·Molecular Plant Pathology

Abstract

Summary: Plant‐pathogenic fungi secrete effector proteins to facilitate infection. We describe extensive improvements to EffectorP, the first machine learning classifier for fungal effector prediction. EffectorP 2.0 is now trained on a larger set of effectors and utilizes a different approach based on an ensemble of classifiers trained on different subsets of negative data, offering different views on classification. EffectorP 2.0 achieves an accuracy of 89%, compared with 82% for EffectorP 1.0 and 59.8% for a small size classifier. Important features for effector prediction appear to be protein size, protein net charge as well as the amino acids serine and cysteine. EffectorP 2.0 decreases the number of predicted effectors in secretomes of fungal plant symbionts and saprophytes by 40% when compared with EffectorP 1.0. However, EffectorP 1.0 retains value, and combining EffectorP 1.0 and 2.0 results in a stringent classifier with a low false positive rate of 9%. EffectorP 2.0 predicts significant enrichments of effectors in 12 of 13 sets of infection‐induced proteins from diverse fungal pathogens, whereas a small cysteine‐rich classifier detects enrichment in only seven of 13. EffectorP 2.0 will fast track the prioritization of high‐confidence effector candidates for functional validation and aid in improving our understanding of effector biology. EffectorP 2.0 is available at http://effectorp.csiro.au .

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/mpp.12682

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 95 references

Metadata

Authors
Sperschneider, J., Dodds, P. N., Gardiner, D. M., Singh, K. B., & Taylor, J. M.
Venue
Molecular Plant Pathology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-05-11
Volume
19
Issue
9
Pages
2094-2110
ISSN
  • 1364-3703 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-6722
OpenAlex
W2787339353
Cited by
403
References
95
FWCI
17.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Improved prediction of fungal effector proteins from secretomes with EffectorP 2.0. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/mpp.12682
The paper
Sperschneider, J., Dodds, P. N., Gardiner, D. M., Singh, K. B., & Taylor, J. M. (2018). Improved prediction of fungal effector proteins from secretomes with EffectorP 2.0. Molecular Plant Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12682

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.