Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22471698›Full record

ReviewMolecular plant pathology2012

The Top 10 fungal pathogens in molecular plant pathology.

Ralph Dean, Jan A L Van Kan, Zacharias A Pretorius, Kim E Hammond-Kosack, Antonio Di Pietro, Pietro D Spanu, Jason J Rudd, Marty Dickman, Regine Kahmann, Jeff Ellis and 1 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular plant pathology, 2012. 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 1,835 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1,835citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1,835 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Plant signaling & behavior · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review

1,775 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

11 authors.

Ralph DeanDepartment of Plant Pathology, Fungal Genomics Laboratory, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
Jan A L Van Kan
Zacharias A Pretorius
Kim E Hammond-Kosack
Antonio Di Pietro
Pietro D Spanu
Jason J Rudd
Marty Dickman
Regine Kahmann
Jeff Ellis
Gary D Foster

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/E000983/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/C/00004972Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/C/00004973
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this review was to survey all fungal pathologists with an association with the journal Molecular Plant Pathology and ask them to nominate which fungal pathogens they would place in a 'Top 10' based on scientific/economic importance. The survey generated 495 votes from the international community, and resulted in the generation of a Top 10 fungal plant pathogen list for Molecular Plant Pathology. The Top 10 list includes, in rank order, (1) Magnaporthe oryzae; (2) Botrytis cinerea; (3) Puccinia spp.; (4) Fusarium graminearum; (5) Fusarium oxysporum; (6) Blumeria graminis; (7) Mycosphaerella graminicola; (8) Colletotrichum spp.; (9) Ustilago maydis; (10) Melampsora lini, with honourable mentions for fungi just missing out on the Top 10, including Phakopsora pachyrhizi and Rhizoctonia solani. This article presents a short resumé of each fungus in the Top 10 list and its importance, with the intent of initiating discussion and debate amongst the plant mycology community, as well as laying down a bench-mark. It will be interesting to see in future years how perceptions change and what fungi will comprise any future Top 10.

Indexed as

Plant PathologyFungiPlants

Identifiers

PMID22471698
PMCPMC6638784

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.