The DOI matches its Crossref record; 120 of the 120 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Significance of Inducible Defense-related Proteins in Infected Plants
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Inducible defense-related proteins have been described in many plant species upon infection with oomycetes, fungi, bacteria, or viruses, or insect attack. Several types of proteins are common and have been classified into 17 families of pathogenesis-related proteins (PRs). Others have so far been found to occur more specifically in some plant species. Most PRs and related proteins are induced through the action of the signaling compounds salicylic acid, jasmonic acid, or ethylene, and possess antimicrobial activities in vitro through hydrolytic activities on cell walls, contact toxicity, and perhaps an involvement in defense signaling. However, when expressed in transgenic plants, they reduce only a limited number of diseases, depending on the nature of the protein, plant species, and pathogen involved. As exemplified by the PR-1 proteins in Arabidopsis and rice, many homologous proteins belonging to the same family are regulated developmentally and may serve different functions in specific organs or tissues. Several defense-related proteins are induced during senescence, wounding or cold stress, and some possess antifreeze activity. Many defense-related proteins are present constitutively in floral tissues and a substantial number of PR-like proteins in pollen, fruits, and vegetables can provoke allergy in humans. The evolutionary conservation of similar defense-related proteins in monocots and dicots, but also their divergent occurrence in other conditions, suggest that these proteins serve essential functions in plant life, whether in defense or not.
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
Durrant, W. E., & Dong, X. (2004) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.42.040803.140421 · Cited by 3,184
MAP kinase signalling cascade in Arabidopsis innate immunity
Asai, T., Tena, G., Plotnikova, J., Willmann, M. R., Chiu, W.-L., Gomez-Gomez, L., Boller, T., Ausubel, F. M., & Sheen, J. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/415977a · Cited by 2,726
GENEVESTIGATOR. Arabidopsis Microarray Database and Analysis Toolbox
Zimmermann, P., Hirsch-Hoffmann, M., Hennig, L., & Gruissem, W. (2004) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.104.046367 · Cited by 2,462
Ryals, J. A., Neuenschwander, U. H., Willits, M. G., Molina, A., Steiner, H. Y., & Hunt, M. D. (1996) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1105/tpc.8.10.1809 · Cited by 1,988
VAN LOON, L. C., & VAN STRIEN, E. A. (1999) · Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology · doi:10.1006/pmpp.1999.0213 · Cited by 1,950
Self-citationResistance gene-dependent plant defense responses.
Hammond-Kosack, K. E., & Jones, J. D. (1996) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1105/tpc.8.10.1773 · Cited by 1,752
Feussner, I., & Wasternack, C. (2002) · Annual Review of Plant Biology · doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135248 · Cited by 1,508
Cross talk between signaling pathways in pathogen defense
Kunkel, B. N., & Brooks, D. M. (2002) · Current Opinion in Plant Biology · doi:10.1016/s1369-5266(02)00275-3 · Cited by 1,451
Innate immunity in plants and animals: striking similarities and obvious differences
Nürnberger, T., Brunner, F., Kemmerling, B., & Piater, L. (2004) · Immunological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.0105-2896.2004.0119.x · Cited by 1,286
Coordinate Gene Activity in Response to Agents That Induce Systemic Acquired Resistance.
Ward, E. R., Uknes, S. J., Williams, S. C., Dincher, S. S., Wiederhold, D. L., Alexander, D. C., Ahl-Goy, P., Metraux, J. P., & Ryals, J. A. (1991) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1105/tpc.3.10.1085 · Cited by 1,272
Cited by
Induced systemic resistance by beneficial microbes
Pieterse, C. M. J., Zamioudis, C., Berendsen, R. L., Weller, D. M., Van Wees, S. C. M., & Bakker, P. A. H. M. (2014) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102340 · Cited by 3,272
Self-citationSeaweed extracts as biostimulants of plant growth and development
Khan, W., Rayirath, U. P., Subramanian, S., Jithesh, M. N., Rayorath, P., Hodges, D. M., Critchley, A. T., Craigie, J. S., Norrie, J., & Prithiviraj, B. (2009) · Journal of Plant Growth Regulation · doi:10.1007/s00344-009-9103-x · Cited by 1,740
Functional diversity within the simple gut microbiota of the honey bee
Engel, P., Martinson, V. G., & Moran, N. A. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1202970109 · Cited by 874
Plant pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins: A focus on PR peptides
Sels, J., Mathys, J., De Coninck, B. M. A., Cammue, B. P. A., & De Bolle, M. F. C. (2008) · Plant Physiology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.plaphy.2008.06.011 · Cited by 836
Elicitors, Effectors, and R Genes: The New Paradigm and a Lifetime Supply of Questions
Bent, A. F., & Mackey, D. (2007) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.45.062806.094427 · Cited by 773
Metadata
- Authors
- van Loon, L. C., Rep, M., & Pieterse, C. M. J.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Phytopathology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2006-09-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 135-162
- ISSN
- 0066-4286 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2107
- OpenAlex
- W2153819056
- Cited by
- 3,410
- References
- 120
- FWCI
- 8.57
- 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: Significance of Inducible Defense-related Proteins in Infected Plants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.phyto.44.070505.143425
- The paper
- van Loon, L. C., Rep, M., & Pieterse, C. M. J. (2006). Significance of Inducible Defense-related Proteins in Infected Plants. Annual Review of Phytopathology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.44.070505.143425
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.
