ArticleFrontiers in plant science2014
Transcriptional responses of Arabidopsis thaliana to chewing and sucking insect herbivores.
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
45 citing papers in PubMed, 92 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular and transcriptional regulation of plant defense responses to aphid infestation.Stress biology · 2026Review
- Insect herbivory time-course reveals unique temporal transcriptomic responses in resistant and susceptible grapevines.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Indirect Defense Responses of Arabidopsis Thaliana To Insect Feeding Vibrations Utilizing a Miniature GC-FID.Journal of chemical ecology · 2025Article
- Transcriptomic analysis of a compatible tobacco-herbivore interaction and the role of jasmonoyl-L-isoleucine hydrolase 1 in response to growth/defense trade-off.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- The role of plant cell walls in pest resistance: current insights and future perspectives.Journal of experimental botany · 2025Review
- Fall Armyworm Frass Induce Sorghum Defenses Against Insect Herbivores.Journal of chemical ecology · 2025Article
- Transcriptomics integrated with metabolomics reveals the defense response of insect-resistantHeliyon · 2025Article
- Comparative translational reprogramming ofPhysiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2025Article
- Protein Dynamics in Plant Immunity: Insights into Plant-Pest Interactions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Article
- Transcriptomic and metabolomic analysis of poplar response to feeding by Hyphantria cunea.BMC plant biology · 2024Article
- From RdDM to plant defence.Nature plants · 2024Article
- Article
- Water Stress and Black Cutworm Feeding Modulate Plant Response in Maize Colonized byPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Genome-Wide Transcriptomic and Metabolomic Analyses Unveiling the Defence Mechanisms ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- On the Role of TATA Boxes and TATA-Binding Protein inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Molecular tug-of-war: Plant immune recognition of herbivory.The Plant cell · 2022Review
- Article
- Priming Seeds with Indole and (Z)-3-Hexenyl Acetate Enhances Resistance Against Herbivores and Stimulates Growth.Journal of chemical ecology · 2022Article
- Genome-Wide Analysis of WRKY Gene Family and the Dynamic Responses of Key WRKY Genes Involved inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that Arabidopsis can recognize and respond differentially to insect species at the transcriptional level using a genome wide microarray. Transcriptional reprogramming was characterized using co-expression analysis in damaged and undamaged leaves at two times in response to mechanical wounding and four insect species. In all, 2778 (10.6%) of annotated genes on the array were differentially expressed in at least one treatment. Responses differed mainly between aphid and caterpillar and sampling times. Responses to aphids and caterpillars shared only 10% of up-regulated and 8% of down-regulated genes. Responses to two caterpillars shared 21 and 12% of up- and down-regulated genes, whereas responses to the two aphids shared only 7 and 4% of up-regulated and down-regulated genes. Overlap in genes expressed between 6 and 24 h was 3-15%, and depended on the insect species. Responses in attacked and unattacked leaves differed at 6 h but converged by 24 h. Genes responding to the insects are also responsive to many stressors and included primary metabolism. Aphids down-regulated amino acid catabolism; caterpillars stimulated production of amino acids involved in glucosinolate synthesis. Co-expression analysis revealed 17 response networks. Transcription factors were a major portion of differentially expressed genes throughout and responsive genes shared most of the known or postulated binding sites. However, cis-element composition of genes down regulated by the aphid M. persicae was unique, as were those of genes down-regulated by caterpillars. As many as 20 cis-elements were over-represented in one or more treatments, including some from well-characterized classes and others as yet uncharacterized. We suggest that transcriptional changes elicited by wounding and insects are heavily influenced by transcription factors and involve both enrichment of a common set of cis-elements and a unique enrichment of a few cis-elements in responding genes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.