Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 497

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

The Polymerase Chain Reaction and Plant Disease Diagnosis

Henson, Joan M., French, Roy·1993·Annual Review of Phytopathology

Abstract

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) provides a simple, ingenious method to exponentially amplify specific DNA sequences by in vitro DNA synthesis. Three essential steps to PCR (Figure 1) include (a) melting of the target (b) annealing of two oligonucleotide primers to the denatured DNA strands, and (c) primer extension by a thermostable DNA polymerase (123). Newly synthesized DNA strands serve as targets for subsequent DNA synthesis as the three steps are repeated up to 50 times. The specificity of the method derives from the synthetic oligonucleotide primers, which base-pair to and define each end of the target sequence to be amplified. The use of PCR grew rapidly in plant pathology, as in other disciplines, with the introduction in 1988 of Thermus aquaticus (Taq) DNA polymerase. This enzyme exhibits relative stability at DNA-meltintgem peratures, which eliminates the need for enzyme replenishment after each cycle of synthesis, reduces PCR costs and allows automated thermal cycling. PCR offers several advantages compared to more traditional methods of diagnosis: organisms need not be cultured prior to their detection by PCR; the technique possesses exquisite sensitivity, with the theoretical potential to detect a single target molecule in a complex mixture without using radioactive probes; and it is rapid and versatile. Similar to serology, both narrow and broad selectivities are possible and, depending on the choice of primers, the method facilitates the detection of a single pathogen or many members of a group of related pathogens. Unlike serology, the development of reagents with narrow or broad specificities is accomplished almost at will with lower cost. Synthesis of hundreds of different PCR primers generates costs comparable to those of developing only a few monoclonal antibodies. Molecular genetic protocols in a variety of other disciplines employ PCR. Several reviews on its use and methodology in fields other than plant pathology have been published recently (4, 10, I1, 46, 46a, 91, 137). This review therefore focuses on the use of PCR for diagnosis of plant diseases and other applications in plant pathology.

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 · 10.1146/annurev.py.31.090193.000501

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 497

Metadata

Authors
Henson, J. M., & French, R.
Venue
Annual Review of Phytopathology
Published
1993-09
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
81-109
ISSN
  • 0066-4286 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2107
OpenAlex
W2101666727
Cited by
497
References
1
FWCI
5.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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 Polymerase Chain Reaction and Plant Disease Diagnosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.py.31.090193.000501
The paper
Henson, J. M., & French, R. (1993). The Polymerase Chain Reaction and Plant Disease Diagnosis. Annual Review of Phytopathology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.py.31.090193.000501

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.