Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24098512›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Transcriptomics of the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae in response to the bacterial antagonist Lysobacter enzymogenes reveals candidate fungal defense response genes.

Sandra M Mathioni, Nrupali Patel, Bianca Riddick, James A Sweigard, Kirk J Czymmek, Jeffrey L Caplan, Sridhara G Kunjeti, Saritha Kunjeti, Vidhyavathi Raman, Bradley I Hillman and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Transcriptomic and Ultrastructural Analyses ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Transcriptomics Analysis of the Chinese Pear Pathotype ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sandra M MathioniDepartment of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, United States of America.
Nrupali Patel
Bianca Riddick
James A Sweigard
Kirk J Czymmek
Jeffrey L Caplan
Sridhara G Kunjeti
Saritha Kunjeti
Vidhyavathi Raman
Bradley I Hillman
Donald Y Kobayashi
Nicole M Donofrio
University of Delaware · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USBiotechnology Institute · USDuPont (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants and animals have evolved a first line of defense response to pathogens called innate or basal immunity. While basal defenses in these organisms are well studied, there is almost a complete lack of understanding of such systems in fungal species, and more specifically, how they are able to detect and mount a defense response upon pathogen attack. Hence, the goal of the present study was to understand how fungi respond to biotic stress by assessing the transcriptional profile of the rice blast pathogen, Magnaporthe oryzae, when challenged with the bacterial antagonist Lysobacter enzymogenes. Based on microscopic observations of interactions between M. oryzae and wild-type L. enzymogenes strain C3, we selected early and intermediate stages represented by time-points of 3 and 9 hours post-inoculation, respectively, to evaluate the fungal transcriptome using RNA-seq. For comparative purposes, we also challenged the fungus with L. enzymogenes mutant strain DCA, previously demonstrated to be devoid of antifungal activity. A comparison of transcriptional data from fungal interactions with the wild-type bacterial strain C3 and the mutant strain DCA revealed 463 fungal genes that were down-regulated during attack by C3; of these genes, 100 were also found to be up-regulated during the interaction with DCA. Functional categorization of genes in this suite included those with roles in carbohydrate metabolism, cellular transport and stress response. One gene in this suite belongs to the CFEM-domain class of fungal proteins. Another CFEM class protein called PTH11 has been previously characterized, and we found that a deletion in this gene caused advanced lesion development by C3 compared to its growth on the wild-type fungus. We discuss the characterization of this suite of 100 genes with respect to their role in the fungal defense response.

Indexed as

AntibiosisTranscriptomeAmino Acid MotifsBacterial LoadComputational BiologyFungal ProteinsGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, FungalLysobacterMagnaportheMutationNucleotide MotifsPosition-Specific Scoring MatricesPromoter Regions, GeneticProtein Interaction Domains and MotifsTime FactorsFungal Proteins

Identifiers

PMID24098512
PMCPMC3789685
OpenAlexW2026185876

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.