The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ApoplastP : prediction of effectors and plant proteins in the apoplast using machine learning
Open accessAbstract
Summary: The plant apoplast is integral to intercellular signalling, transport and plant–pathogen interactions. Plant pathogens deliver effectors both into the apoplast and inside host cells, but no computational method currently exists to discriminate between these localizations. We present ApoplastP , the first method for predicting whether an effector or plant protein localizes to the apoplast. ApoplastP uncovers features of apoplastic localization common to both effectors and plant proteins, namely depletion in glutamic acid, acidic amino acids and charged amino acids and enrichment in small amino acids. ApoplastP predicts apoplastic localization in effectors with a sensitivity of 75% and a false positive rate of 5%, improving the accuracy of cysteine‐rich classifiers by > 13%. ApoplastP does not depend on the presence of a signal peptide and correctly predicts the localization of unconventionally secreted proteins. The secretomes of fungal saprophytes as well as necrotrophic, hemibiotrophic and extracellular fungal pathogens are enriched for predicted apoplastic proteins. Rust pathogens have low proportions of predicted apoplastic proteins, but these are highly enriched for predicted effectors. ApoplastP pioneers apoplastic localization prediction using machine learning. It will facilitate functional studies and will be valuable for predicting if an effector localizes to the apoplast or if it enters plant cells.
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
featureCounts: an efficient general purpose program for assigning sequence reads to genomic features
Liao, Y., Smyth, G. K., & Shi, W. (2014) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btt656 · Cited by 27,219
SignalP 4.0: discriminating signal peptides from transmembrane regions
Petersen, T. N., Brunak, S., von Heijne, G., & Nielsen, H. (2011) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.1701 · Cited by 8,847
O'Connell, R. J., Thon, M. R., Hacquard, S., Amyotte, S. G., Kleemann, J., Torres, M. F., Damm, U., Buiate, E. A., Epstein, L., Alkan, N., et al. (2012) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.2372 · Cited by 1,047
Cited by
Improved prediction of fungal effector proteins from secretomes with EffectorP 2.0
Sperschneider, J., Dodds, P. N., Gardiner, D. M., Singh, K. B., & Taylor, J. M. (2018) · Molecular Plant Pathology · doi:10.1111/mpp.12682 · Cited by 403
Self-citationAlphaFold-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
Banerjee, S., Bhandary, P., Woodhouse, M., Sen, T. Z., Wise, R. P., & Andorf, C. M. (2021) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/s12859-021-04120-9 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Sperschneider, J., Dodds, P. N., Singh, K. B., & Taylor, J. M.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-12-15
- Volume
- 217
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1764-1778
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2753733339
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 5.73
- 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: ApoplastP : prediction of effectors and plant proteins in the apoplast using machine learning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nph.14946
- The paper
- Sperschneider, J., Dodds, P. N., Singh, K. B., & Taylor, J. M. (2018). ApoplastP : prediction of effectors and plant proteins in the apoplast using machine learning. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14946
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.