ArticleScientific reports2017
Bark and wood tissues of American elm exhibit distinct responses to Dutch elm disease.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perspectives of Gene Editing for the Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Review
- Chromosome-level genome assembly and annotation of Ulmus minor reveal dynamic intrageneric clusters of resistance genes.The plant genome · 2025Article
- Vectors of Dutch Elm Disease in Northern Europe.Insects · 2021Article
- A Systematic Review of Melatonin in Plants: An Example of Evolution of Literature.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Review
- Metabolomics and hormonomics to crack the code of filbert growth.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tolerance to Dutch elm disease (DED) has been linked to the rapid and/or high induction of disease-responsive genes after infection with the fungus Ophiostoma novo-ulmi. Although the fungal infection by O. novo-ulmi primarily takes places in xylem vessels, it is still unclear how xylem contributes to the defense against DED. Taking advantage of the easy separation of wood and bark tissues in young American elm saplings, here we show that most disease-responsive genes exhibited higher expression in wood compared to bark tissues after fungal infection. On the other hand, the stress-related phytohormones were generally more abundant in the bark compared to wood tissues. However, only endogenous levels of jasmonates (JAs), but not salicylic acid (SA) and abscisic acid (ABA) increased in the inoculated tissues. This, along with the upregulation of JA-biosynthesis genes in inoculated bark and core tissues further suggest that phloem and xylem might contribute to the de novo biosynthesis of JA after fungal infection. The comparison between two tolerant elm varieties, 'Valley Forge' and 'Princeton,' also indicated that tolerance against DED might be mediated by different mechanisms in the xylem. The present study sheds some light on the amplitude and kinetics of defense responses produced in the xylem and phloem in response to DED.
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.