Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 197

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Agrobacterium tumefaciens mutants affected in attachment to plant cells

Open access
Douglas, C J, Halperin, W, Nester, E W·1982·Journal of Bacteriology

Abstract

An analysis of Agrobacterium tumefaciens mutants with Tn5 insertions in chromosomal DNA showed that the chromosome of A. tumefaciens codes for a specific ability of this bacterium to attach to plant cells. This ability is associated with tumorigenesis by A. tumefaciens, the ability of avirulent A. tumefaciens to inhibit tumorigenesis, and the ability to adsorb certain phages. A second class of chromosomal mutations affects tumorigenesis without altering the ability to attach to plant cells. The attachment of A. tumefaciens to plant cells was assayed by mixing radiolabeled bacteria with suspensions of tobacco tissue culture cells or freshly isolated Zinnia leaf mesophyll cells. Under the conditions of this assay, an avirulent Ti plasmid-cured strain attached to the same extent as the same strain containing pTiB6806. Six of eight avirulent mutants with Tn5 insertions in chromosomal DNA showed defective attachment, whereas two retained wild-type attachment ability. In contrast to the strains showing wild-type attachment, the attachment-defective mutants failed to inhibit tumorigenesis when inoculated onto Jerusalem artichoke slices before inoculation of a virulent strain and also showed a loss of sensitivity to two Agrobacterium phages. The loss of phage sensitivity appeared to be due to a loss of ability to adsorb the phages. Staining with Calcofluor indicated that the mutants retained the ability to synthesize cellulose fibrils, which have been implicated in the attachment process. Southern filter hybridizations demonstrated that each mutant contained a single Tn5 insertion, and genetic linkage between the Tn5 insertion in one mutant and the attachment phenotype has also been demonstrated.

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 · 10.1128/jb.152.3.1265-1275.1982

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 197

Metadata

Authors
Douglas, C. J., Halperin, W., & Nester, E. W.
Venue
Journal of Bacteriology
Published
1982-12
Volume
152
Issue
3
Pages
1265-1275
ISSN
  • 0021-9193 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-5530
OpenAlex
W1543863849
Cited by
197
References
1
FWCI
11.61
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: Agrobacterium tumefaciens mutants affected in attachment to plant cells. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jb.152.3.1265-1275.1982
The paper
Douglas, C. J., Halperin, W., & Nester, E. W. (1982). Agrobacterium tumefaciens mutants affected in attachment to plant cells. Journal of Bacteriology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.152.3.1265-1275.1982

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.