Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24285850›Full record

SynthesisPlant physiology2014

Reciprocal responses in the interaction between Arabidopsis and the cell-content-feeding chelicerate herbivore spider mite.

Vladimir Zhurov, Marie Navarro, Kristie A Bruinsma, Vicent Arbona, M Estrella Santamaria, Marc Cazaux, Nicky Wybouw, Edward J Osborne, Cherise Ens, Cristina Rioja and 11 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Plant physiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 153 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Transcriptomic Analysis Reveals Molecular Mechanisms ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Opposite roles of MAPKKK17 and MAPKKK21 againstFrontiers in plant science · 2022
    Article
  20. Article

19 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

21 authors at 11 institutions in 8 countries.

Vladimir ZhurovDepartment of Biology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B7.
Marie Navarro
Kristie A Bruinsma
Vicent Arbona
M Estrella Santamaria
Marc Cazaux
Nicky Wybouw
Edward J Osborne
Cherise Ens
Cristina Rioja
Vanessa Vermeirssen
Ignacio Rubio-Somoza
Priti Krishna
Isabel Diaz
Markus Schmid
Aurelio Gómez-Cadenas
Yves Van de Peer
Miodrag Grbic
Richard M Clark
Thomas Van Leeuwen
Vojislava Grbic
Western University · CAInstituto de Ciencias de la Vid y del Vino · ESMax Planck Institute for Developmental Biology · DEUniversidad Politécnica de Madrid · ESUniversitat Jaume I · ESUniversity of Utah · USGhent University · BEGhent University Hospital · BEUniversity of Amsterdam · NLUniversity of New England · AUUniversity of Pretoria · ZA

Funding

TRAINING PROGRAM IN GENETICST32GM007464 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI GRUNWALD, DAVID J., STANFIELD, GILLIAN · 1985 to 2020
$6.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007464
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most molecular-genetic studies of plant defense responses to arthropod herbivores have focused on insects. However, plant-feeding mites are also pests of diverse plants, and mites induce different patterns of damage to plant tissues than do well-studied insects (e.g. lepidopteran larvae or aphids). The two-spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) is among the most significant mite pests in agriculture, feeding on a staggering number of plant hosts. To understand the interactions between spider mite and a plant at the molecular level, we examined reciprocal genome-wide responses of mites and its host Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana). Despite differences in feeding guilds, we found that transcriptional responses of Arabidopsis to mite herbivory resembled those observed for lepidopteran herbivores. Mutant analysis of induced plant defense pathways showed functionally that only a subset of induced programs, including jasmonic acid signaling and biosynthesis of indole glucosinolates, are central to Arabidopsis's defense to mite herbivory. On the herbivore side, indole glucosinolates dramatically increased mite mortality and development times. We identified an indole glucosinolate dose-dependent increase in the number of differentially expressed mite genes belonging to pathways associated with detoxification of xenobiotics. This demonstrates that spider mite is sensitive to Arabidopsis defenses that have also been associated with the deterrence of insect herbivores that are very distantly related to chelicerates. Our findings provide molecular insights into the nature of, and response to, herbivory for a representative of a major class of arthropod herbivores.

Indexed as

Host-Parasite InteractionsAnimalsArabidopsisCyclopentanesFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, PlantGenetic VariationGlucosinolatesHerbivoryLarvaMutationOxylipinsPlant Growth RegulatorsSignal TransductionTetranychidaeCyclopentanesGlucosinolatesjasmonic acidOxylipinsPlant Growth Regulators

Identifiers

PMID24285850
PMCPMC3875816
OpenAlexW2008260698

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.