Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22069756›Full record

ReviewToxins2011

Modes of action of microbially-produced phytotoxins.

Stephen O Duke, Franck E Dayan

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxins, 2011. 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 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
12.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Recent Advances inJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  12. Plant susceptible responses: the underestimated side of plant-pathogen interactions.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Sorbicillinoids From the FungusFrontiers in chemistry · 2019
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephen O DukeUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Natural Products Utilization Research Unit, P. O. Box 8048, MS 38677, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7210-5168
Franck E DayanUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Natural Products Utilization Research Unit, P. O. Box 8048, MS 38677, USA.
Agricultural Research Service · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Some of the most potent phytotoxins are synthesized by microbes. A few of these share molecular target sites with some synthetic herbicides, but many microbial toxins have unique target sites with potential for exploitation by the herbicide industry. Compounds from both non-pathogenic and pathogenic microbes are discussed. Microbial phytotoxins with modes of action the same as those of commercial herbicides and those with novel modes of action of action are covered. Examples of the compounds discussed are tentoxin, AAL-toxin, auscaulitoxin aglycone, hydantocidin, thaxtomin, and tabtoxin.

Indexed as

Amino AcidsBacteriaBacterial ToxinsCyclopentanesDipeptidesFungiHerbicidesHydantoinsMycotoxinsOxylipinsPeptides, CyclicAmino AcidsBacterial ToxinsCyclopentanesDipeptidesHerbicideshydantocidinHydantoinsjasmonic acidMycotoxinsOxylipinsPeptides, Cyclictabtoxintentoxinantibioticherbicidephytotoxin

Identifiers

PMID22069756
PMCPMC3202864
OpenAlexW2090316071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.