Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18705878›Full record

ReviewMolecular plant pathology2008

Phytophthora infestans: the plant (and R gene) destroyer.

William Fry

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular plant pathology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 240 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
240citing 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

240 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Diversification and deployment of PRR and NLR immune receptors in potato.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Frontiers in plant science · 2026
    Review
  18. Article
  19. AFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

180 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

William FryCornell University, Department of Plant Pathology, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. wef1@cornell.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Phytophthora infestans remains a problem to production agriculture. Historically there have been many controversies concerning its biology and pathogenicity, some of which remain today. Advances in molecular biology and genomics promise to reveal fascinating insight into its pathogenicity and biology. However, the plasticity of its genome as revealed in population diversity and in the abundance of putative effectors means that this oomycete remains a formidable foe.

Indexed as

Genetic SpeciationGenetic VariationHost-Pathogen InteractionsPhytophthoraPlant DevelopmentPlant DiseasesPlantsSolanum tuberosum

Identifiers

PMID18705878
PMCPMC6640234

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.