Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26307100›Full record

ArticleBMC plant biology2015

Suppression of different classes of somatic mutations in Arabidopsis by vir gene-expressing Agrobacterium strains.

Jasmine M Shah, Anantha Maharasi Ramakrishnan, Amit Kumar Singh, Subalakshmi Ramachandran, Unnikrishnan Unniyampurath, Ajitha Jayshankar, Nithya Balasundaram, Shanmuhapreya Dhanapal, Geoff Hyde, Ramamurthy Baskar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC plant biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Essential role of theBiotechnologia · 2023
    Article
  3. Screening internal controls for expression analyses involving numerous treatments by combining statistical methods with reference gene selection tools.Physiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2019
    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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jasmine M ShahDepartment of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology-Madras, Chennai, 600036, India. jas109@gmail.com.
Anantha Maharasi RamakrishnanDepartment of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology-Madras, Chennai, 600036, India. bioananthi.08@gmail.com.
Amit Kumar SinghDepartment of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology-Madras, Chennai, 600036, India. amit.mku@gmail.com.
Subalakshmi RamachandranDepartment of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology-Madras, Chennai, 600036, India. whiterose.mani@gmail.com.
Unnikrishnan UnniyampurathDepartment of Environmental Science, Central University of Kerala, Kasaragod, 671328, India. unnikrishnanu@gmail.com.
Ajitha JayshankarDepartment of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology-Madras, Chennai, 600036, India. ajithajayashankar@gmail.com.
Nithya BalasundaramDepartment of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology-Madras, Chennai, 600036, India. nithi.bio14@gmail.com.
Shanmuhapreya DhanapalDepartment of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology-Madras, Chennai, 600036, India. shanmuhapreya@gmail.com.
Geoff Hyde, 14 Randwick St, Sydney, 2031, Australia. geoffjhyde@gmail.com.
Ramamurthy BaskarDepartment of Biotechnology, Bhupat and Jyoti Mehta School of Biosciences, Indian Institute of Technology-Madras, Chennai, 600036, India. rbaskar@iitm.ac.in.
Indian Institute of Technology Madras · INCentral University of Kerala · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAgrobacterium infection, which is widely used to generate transgenic plants, is often accompanied by T-DNA-linked mutations and transpositions in flowering plants. It is not known if Agrobacterium infection also affects the rates of point mutations, somatic homologous recombinations (SHR) and frame-shift mutations (FSM). We examined the effects of Agrobacterium infection on five types of somatic mutations using a set of mutation detector lines of Arabidopsis thaliana. To verify the effect of secreted factors, we exposed the plants to different Agrobacterium strains, including wild type (Ach5), its derivatives lacking vir genes, oncogenes or T-DNA, and the heat-killed form for 48 h post-infection; also, for a smaller set of strains, we examined the rates of three types of mutations at multiple time-points. The mutation detector lines carried a non-functional β-glucuronidase gene (GUS) and a reversion of mutated GUS to its functional form resulted in blue spots. Based on the number of blue spots visible in plants grown for a further two weeks, we estimated the mutation frequencies.

resultsFor plants co-cultivated for 48 h with Agrobacterium, if the strain contained vir genes, then the rates of transversions, SHRs and FSMs (measured 2 weeks later) were lower than those of uninfected controls. In contrast, co-cultivation for 48 h with any of the Agrobacterium strains raised the transposition rates above control levels. The multiple time-point study showed that in seedlings co-cultivated with wild type Ach5, the reduced rates of transversions and SHRs after 48 h co-cultivation represent an apparent suppression of an earlier short-lived increase in mutation rates (peaking for plants co-cultivated for 3 h). An increase after 3 h co-cultivation was also seen for rates of transversions (but not SHR) in seedlings exposed to the strain lacking vir genes, oncogenes and T-DNA. However, the mutation rates in plants co-cultivated for longer times with this strain subsequently dropped below levels seen in uninfected controls, consistent with the results of the single time-point study.

conclusionsThe rates of various classes of mutations that result from Agrobacterium infection depend upon the duration of infection and the type of pathogen derived factors (such as Vir proteins, oncoproteins or T-DNA) possessed by the strain. Strains with vir genes, including the type used for plant transformation, suppressed selected classes of somatic mutations. Our study also provides evidence of a pathogen that can at least partly counter the induction of mutations in an infected plant.

Indexed as

Genes, BacterialSuppression, GeneticAgrobacterium tumefaciensArabidopsisChromosomes, PlantEscherichia coliFrameshift MutationHomologous RecombinationMutationPlants, Genetically ModifiedTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID26307100
PMCPMC4549908
OpenAlexW2123315944

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.