Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23809086›Full record

ReviewMolecular plant pathology2013

Top 10 plant-parasitic nematodes in molecular plant pathology.

John T Jones, Annelies Haegeman, Etienne G J Danchin, Hari S Gaur, Johannes Helder, Michael G K Jones, Taisei Kikuchi, Rosa Manzanilla-López, Juan E Palomares-Rius, Wim M L Wesemael and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular plant pathology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 689 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
689citing 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

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

  1. Nematicidal effects ofFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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

11 authors.

John T JonesJames Hutton Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee, DD2 5DA, UK.
Annelies Haegeman
Etienne G J Danchin
Hari S Gaur
Johannes Helder
Michael G K Jones
Taisei Kikuchi
Rosa Manzanilla-López
Juan E Palomares-Rius
Wim M L Wesemael
Roland N Perry

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this review was to undertake a survey of researchers working with plant-parasitic nematodes in order to determine a 'top 10' list of these pathogens based on scientific and economic importance. Any such list will not be definitive as economic importance will vary depending on the region of the world in which a researcher is based. However, care was taken to include researchers from as many parts of the world as possible when carrying out the survey. The top 10 list emerging from the survey is composed of: (1) root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.); (2) cyst nematodes (Heterodera and Globodera spp.); (3) root lesion nematodes (Pratylenchus spp.); (4) the burrowing nematode Radopholus similis; (5) Ditylenchus dipsaci; (6) the pine wilt nematode Bursaphelenchus xylophilus; (7) the reniform nematode Rotylenchulus reniformis; (8) Xiphinema index (the only virus vector nematode to make the list); (9) Nacobbus aberrans; and (10) Aphelenchoides besseyi. The biology of each nematode (or nematode group) is reviewed briefly.

Indexed as

AnimalsNematodaPlant DiseasesPlant RootsPlants

Identifiers

PMID23809086
PMCPMC6638764

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.