The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Fungal Vegetative Compatibility
Abstract
Heterokaryon fonnation between different fungal individuals is an important component of many fungal life cycles and may serve as the first step in the parasexual cycle and the transmission of hypovirulent factors such as dsRNAs. Heterokaryosis also is a means by which nonnally haploid fungi may enjoy the benefits of functional diploidy, such as complementation or heterosis. In plant pathogenic fungi, the entity that emerges following heterokaryosis may differ from its constituents in aggressiveness or host range; some of these aspects have been reviewed in previous volumes in this series (9, 28, 45, 62, 72, 112, 114, 117, 143, 154, 158, 160). In most heterothallic fungi, the fonnation of a heterokaryon between two genetically different haploid strains is an essential part of the life cycle. Such heterokaryons may be quite stable and persist for an indefinite period of time or may last only long enough for the component haploid nuclei to fuse and then immediately undergo meiosis. In many fungi, sexual and vegetative heterokaryons are quite distinct from one another. Strains capable of fonning a successful sexual heterokaryon may be unable to fonn a successful vegetative heterokaryon and vice versa. Strains that are capable of fonning these types of heterokaryons are referred to as sexually or vegetatively compatible, respectively. Strains that are vege tatively compatible with one another are frequently described as members of the same vegetative compatibility group, or VCG. Sexual compatibility is usually governed by one or more mating-type loci that may have two or more alleles (58, 62). Vegetative compatibility may be governed by the mating-type loci in some fungi, e.g. many basidiomycetes, but there also are examples in which a separate set of genes controls the fonnation and stability of these vegetative heterokaryons.
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
Cited by
Diversity, Pathogenicity, and Management of Verticillium Species
Klosterman, S. J., Atallah, Z. K., Vallad, G. E., & Subbarao, K. V. (2009) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-080508-081748 · Cited by 774
Hou, Z., Xue, C., Peng, Y., Katan, T., Kistler, H. C., & Xu, J.-R. (2002) · Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions® · doi:10.1094/mpmi.2002.15.11.1119 · Cited by 474
Characterization of Colletotrichum Species Responsible for Anthracnose Diseases of Various Fruits
Freeman, S., Katan, T., & Shabi, E. (1998) · Plant Disease · doi:10.1094/pdis.1998.82.6.596 · Cited by 442
The Population Genetics of Fungi: Tools and Techniques
McDonald, B. A. (1997) · Phytopathology® · doi:10.1094/phyto.1997.87.4.448 · Cited by 402
New species of Fusarium associated with dieback of Spartina alterniflora in Atlantic salt marshes
Elmer, W. H., & Marra, R. E. (2011) · Mycologia · doi:10.3852/10-155 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Leslie, J. F.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Phytopathology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 1993-09
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 127-150
- ISSN
- 0066-4286 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2107
- OpenAlex
- W2149755404
- Cited by
- 679
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.87
- 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: Fungal Vegetative Compatibility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.py.31.090193.001015
- The paper
- Leslie, J. F. (1993). Fungal Vegetative Compatibility. Annual Review of Phytopathology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.py.31.090193.001015
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.