Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29969982›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2018

Genome sequence and effectorome of Moniliophthora perniciosa and Moniliophthora roreri subpopulations.

Ceslaine Santos Barbosa, Rute R da Fonseca, Thiago Mafra Batista, Mariana Araújo Barreto, Caio Suzart Argolo, Mariana Rocha de Carvalho, Daniel Oliveira Jordão do Amaral, Edson Mário de Andrade Silva, Enrique Arévalo-Gardini, Karina Solis Hidalgo and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 7 countries.

Ceslaine Santos BarbosaDepartamento de Ciências Biológicas (DCB), Centro de Biotecnologia e Genética (CBG), Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz (UESC), Rodovia Ilhéus-Itabuna, km 16, Ilhéus, 45662-900, Bahia, Brazil.
Rute R da FonsecaThe Bioinformatics Centre, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Thiago Mafra BatistaDepartamento de Bioquímica e Imunologia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais/Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Mariana Araújo BarretoDepartamento de Ciências Biológicas (DCB), Centro de Biotecnologia e Genética (CBG), Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz (UESC), Rodovia Ilhéus-Itabuna, km 16, Ilhéus, 45662-900, Bahia, Brazil.
Caio Suzart ArgoloDepartamento de Ciências Biológicas (DCB), Centro de Biotecnologia e Genética (CBG), Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz (UESC), Rodovia Ilhéus-Itabuna, km 16, Ilhéus, 45662-900, Bahia, Brazil.
Mariana Rocha de CarvalhoDepartamento de Ciências Biológicas (DCB), Centro de Biotecnologia e Genética (CBG), Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz (UESC), Rodovia Ilhéus-Itabuna, km 16, Ilhéus, 45662-900, Bahia, Brazil.
Daniel Oliveira Jordão do AmaralDepartamento de Ciências Biológicas (DCB), Centro de Biotecnologia e Genética (CBG), Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz (UESC), Rodovia Ilhéus-Itabuna, km 16, Ilhéus, 45662-900, Bahia, Brazil.
Edson Mário de Andrade SilvaDepartamento de Ciências Biológicas (DCB), Centro de Biotecnologia e Genética (CBG), Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz (UESC), Rodovia Ilhéus-Itabuna, km 16, Ilhéus, 45662-900, Bahia, Brazil.
Enrique Arévalo-GardiniInstituto de Cultivos Tropicales -ICT, Tarapoto, Peru.
Karina Solis HidalgoInstituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias - INIAP, Departamento de Protección Vegetal, Quito, Ecuador.
Glória Regina FrancoDepartamento de Bioquímica e Imunologia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais/Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Carlos Priminho PirovaniDepartamento de Ciências Biológicas (DCB), Centro de Biotecnologia e Genética (CBG), Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz (UESC), Rodovia Ilhéus-Itabuna, km 16, Ilhéus, 45662-900, Bahia, Brazil.
Fabienne MicheliDepartamento de Ciências Biológicas (DCB), Centro de Biotecnologia e Genética (CBG), Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz (UESC), Rodovia Ilhéus-Itabuna, km 16, Ilhéus, 45662-900, Bahia, Brazil.
Karina Peres GramachoDepartamento de Ciências Biológicas (DCB), Centro de Biotecnologia e Genética (CBG), Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz (UESC), Rodovia Ilhéus-Itabuna, km 16, Ilhéus, 45662-900, Bahia, Brazil. gramachokp@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4037-1554
Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz · BRUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BRCentre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement · FRInstituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana · PEInstituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias · ECUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe hemibiotrophic pathogens Moniliophthora perniciosa (witches' broom disease) and Moniliophthora roreri (frosty pod rot disease) are among the most important pathogens of cacao. Moniliophthora perniciosa has a broad host range and infects a variety of meristematic tissues in cacao plants, whereas M. roreri infects only pods of Theobroma and Herrania genera. Comparative pathogenomics of these fungi is essential to understand Moniliophthora infection strategies, therefore the detection and in silico functional characterization of effector candidates are important steps to gain insight on their pathogenicity.

resultsCandidate secreted effector proteins repertoire were predicted using the genomes of five representative isolates of M. perniciosa subpopulations (three from cacao and two from solanaceous hosts), and one representative isolate of M. roreri from Peru. Many putative effectors candidates were identified in M. perniciosa: 157 and 134 in cacao isolates from Bahia, Brazil; 109 in cacao isolate from Ecuador, 92 and 80 in wild solanaceous isolates from Minas Gerais (Lobeira) and Bahia (Caiçara), Brazil; respectively. Moniliophthora roreri showed the highest number of effector candidates, a total of 243. A set of eight core effectors were shared among all Moniliophthora isolates, while others were shared either between the wild solanaceous isolates or among cacao isolates. Mostly, candidate effectors of M. perniciosa were shared among the isolates, whereas in M. roreri nearly 50% were exclusive to the specie. In addition, a large number of cell wall-degrading enzymes characteristic of hemibiotrophic fungi were found. From these, we highlighted the proteins involved in cell wall modification, an enzymatic arsenal that allows the plant pathogens to inhabit environments with oxidative stress, which promotes degradation of plant compounds and facilitates infection.

conclusionsThe present work reports six genomes and provides a database of the putative effectorome of Moniliophthora, a first step towards the understanding of the functional basis of fungal pathogenicity.

Indexed as

Genome, FungalAgaricalesBrazilCacaoDNA, FungalFungal ProteinsPhylogenyPlant DiseasesWhole Genome SequencingDNA, FungalFungal ProteinsFrosty pod rotPathogenicity factorsPlant pathogensTheobroma cacaoWitches’ broom

Identifiers

PMID29969982
PMCPMC6029071
OpenAlexW2811178520

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.