Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26779196›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2015

Evaluation of Secretion Prediction Highlights Differing Approaches Needed for Oomycete and Fungal Effectors.

Jana Sperschneider, Angela H Williams, James K Hane, Karam B Singh, Jennifer M Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
–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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Microbiology spectrum · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Characterization of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Effector Proteins.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Genome analysis ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Chromosome-level assembly of theFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  12. Genome Analysis of the Broad Host Range NecrotrophFrontiers in plant science · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Characterization ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2021
    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

5 authors.

Jana SperschneiderCSIRO Agriculture Flagship, Centre for Environment and Life Sciences Perth, WA, Australia.
Angela H WilliamsCSIRO Agriculture Flagship, Centre for Environment and Life SciencesPerth, WA, Australia; The Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western AustraliaCrawley, WA, Australia.
James K HaneDepartment of Environment and Agriculture, CCDM Bioinformatics, Centre for Crop and Disease Management, Curtin UniversityPerth, WA, Australia; Curtin Institute for Computation, Curtin UniversityPerth, WA, Australia.
Karam B SinghCSIRO Agriculture Flagship, Centre for Environment and Life SciencesPerth, WA, Australia; The Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western AustraliaCrawley, WA, Australia.
Jennifer M TaylorCSIRO Agriculture, Black Mountain Laboratories Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The steadily increasing number of sequenced fungal and oomycete genomes has enabled detailed studies of how these eukaryotic microbes infect plants and cause devastating losses in food crops. During infection, fungal and oomycete pathogens secrete effector molecules which manipulate host plant cell processes to the pathogen's advantage. Proteinaceous effectors are synthesized intracellularly and must be externalized to interact with host cells. Computational prediction of secreted proteins from genomic sequences is an important technique to narrow down the candidate effector repertoire for subsequent experimental validation. In this study, we benchmark secretion prediction tools on experimentally validated fungal and oomycete effectors. We observe that for a set of fungal SwissProt protein sequences, SignalP 4 and the neural network predictors of SignalP 3 (D-score) and SignalP 2 perform best. For effector prediction in particular, the use of a sensitive method can be desirable to obtain the most complete candidate effector set. We show that the neural network predictors of SignalP 2 and 3, as well as TargetP were the most sensitive tools for fungal effector secretion prediction, whereas the hidden Markov model predictors of SignalP 2 and 3 were the most sensitive tools for oomycete effectors. Thus, previous versions of SignalP retain value for oomycete effector prediction, as the current version, SignalP 4, was unable to reliably predict the signal peptide of the oomycete Crinkler effectors in the test set. Our assessment of subcellular localization predictors shows that cytoplasmic effectors are often predicted as not extracellular. This limits the reliability of secretion predictions that depend on these tools. We present our assessment with a view to informing future pathogenomics studies and suggest revised pipelines for secretion prediction to obtain optimal effector predictions in fungi and oomycetes.

Indexed as

effectorsfungioomycetesplant pathogensprotein secretionsignal peptide prediction

Identifiers

PMID26779196
PMCPMC4688413

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.