Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 195

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The grapevine flagellin receptor Vv FLS 2 differentially recognizes flagellin‐derived epitopes from the endophytic growth‐promoting bacterium Burkholderia phytofirmans and plant pathogenic bacteria

Open access
Trdá, Lucie, Fernandez, Olivier, Boutrot, Freddy, Héloir, Marie‐Claire, Kelloniemi, Jani, Daire, Xavier, Adrian, Marielle, Clément, Christophe, Zipfel, Cyril, Dorey, Stéphan, Poinssot, Benoit·2014·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: The role of flagellin perception in the context of plant beneficial bacteria still remains unclear. Here, we characterized the flagellin sensing system flg22–FLAGELLIN SENSING 2 (FLS 2) in grapevine, and analyzed the flagellin perception in the interaction with the endophytic plant growth‐promoting rhizobacterium (PGPR) B urkholderia phytofirmans. The functionality of the grapevine FLS 2 receptor, Vv FLS 2, was demonstrated by complementation assays in the A rabidopsis thaliana fls2 mutant, which restored flg22‐induced H2O2 production and growth inhibition. Using synthetic flg22 peptides from different bacterial origins, we compared recognition specificities between V v FLS 2 and At FLS 2. In grapevine, flg22‐triggered immune responses are conserved and led to partial resistance against B otrytis cinerea. Unlike flg22 peptides derived from P seudomonas aeruginosa or X anthomonas campestris, flg22 peptide derived from B. phytofirmans triggered only a small oxidative burst, weak and transient defense gene induction and no growth inhibition in grapevine. Although, in A rabidopsis, all the flg22 epitopes exhibited similar biological activities, the expression of V v FLS 2 into the fls2 background conferred differential flg22 responses characteristic for grapevine. These results demonstrate that V v FLS 2 differentially recognizes flg22 from different bacteria, and suggest that flagellin from the beneficial PGPR B. phytofirmans has evolved to evade this grapevine immune recognition system.

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/nph.12592

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 195

Metadata

Authors
Trdá, L., Fernandez, O., Boutrot, F., Héloir, M., Kelloniemi, J., Daire, X., Adrian, M., Clément, C., Zipfel, C., Dorey, S., & Poinssot, B.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-11-11
Volume
201
Issue
4
Pages
1371-1384
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2110777390
Cited by
195
References
2
FWCI
13.46
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: The grapevine flagellin receptor Vv FLS 2 differentially recognizes flagellin‐derived epitopes from the endophytic growth‐promoting bacterium Burkholderia phytofirmans and plant pathogenic bacteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nph.12592
The paper
Trdá, L., Fernandez, O., Boutrot, F., Héloir, M., Kelloniemi, J., Daire, X., Adrian, M., Clément, C., Zipfel, C., Dorey, S., & Poinssot, B. (2014). The grapevine flagellin receptor Vv FLS 2 differentially recognizes flagellin‐derived epitopes from the endophytic growth‐promoting bacterium Burkholderia phytofirmans and plant pathogenic bacteria. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12592

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.