Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20589070›Full record

ReviewJournal of biomedicine & biotechnology2010

Proteomics of plant pathogenic fungi.

Raquel González-Fernández, Elena Prats, Jesús V Jorrín-Novo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of biomedicine & biotechnology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. In Vitro Evaluation of the Antifungal Activity ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Deciphering the potential ofPhysiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2024
    Article
  8. Computational proteomics analysis ofFrontiers in plant science · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Antimicrobial Activity and Synergy Investigation ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Raquel González-FernándezAgricultural and Plant Biochemistry and Proteomics Research Group, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain. q42gofer@uco.es
Elena Prats
Jesús V Jorrín-Novo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant pathogenic fungi cause important yield losses in crops. In order to develop efficient and environmental friendly crop protection strategies, molecular studies of the fungal biological cycle, virulence factors, and interaction with its host are necessary. For that reason, several approaches have been performed using both classical genetic, cell biology, and biochemistry and the modern, holistic, and high-throughput, omic techniques. This work briefly overviews the tools available for studying Plant Pathogenic Fungi and is amply focused on MS-based Proteomics analysis, based on original papers published up to December 2009. At a methodological level, different steps in a proteomic workflow experiment are discussed. Separate sections are devoted to fungal descriptive (intracellular, subcellular, extracellular) and differential expression proteomics and interactomics. From the work published we can conclude that Proteomics, in combination with other techniques, constitutes a powerful tool for providing important information about pathogenicity and virulence factors, thus opening up new possibilities for crop disease diagnosis and crop protection.

Indexed as

Fungal ProteinsFungiProteomicsMycosesPlant DiseasesPlantsFungal Proteins

Identifiers

PMID20589070
PMCPMC2878683

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.