Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12223872›Full record

ArticlePlant physiology1997

Evidence for Chewing Insect-Specific Molecular Events Distinct from a General Wound Response in Leaves.

K. L. Korth, R. A. Dixon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant physiology, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. An effector ofiScience · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Coexpression of potato type I and II proteinase inhibitors gives cotton plants protection against insect damage in the field.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2010
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

K. L. KorthPlant Biology Division, Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, P.O. Box 2180, Ardmore, Oklahoma 73402.
R. A. Dixon

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The timing of transcript accumulation of several wound-induced genes is different in insect-damaged and mechanically damaged leaves. Transcripts for the proteinase inhibitor II and 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase genes accumulate more rapidly in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) leaves chewed on by caterpillars than in leaves damaged mechanically. The timing of maximum transcript accumulation was not affected by the degree of damage inflicted by the insect larvae. When applied to a mechanical wound site, regurgitant isolated from Manduca sexta larvae causes transcript accumulation profiles to shift to parallel those in insect-damaged tissue. Whether obtained from larvae fed either potato leaves or a nonplant diet, insect regurgitant fed through the petiole of detached leaves also induces accumulation of these transcripts. The transcript accumulation-inducing activity of regurgitant is enhanced by heating at 100[deg]C. Our data suggest that a heat-stable, insect-derived elicitor functions to induce the rapid accumulation of transcripts that may be involved in plant defense against herbivores. Distinct signal transduction pathways that can distinguish between insect damage and abiotic damage might therefore exist in plants.

Identifiers

PMID12223872
PMCPMC158595

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.