ArticleBMC plant biology2021
Transcriptional responses to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (Sacc.) Snyder & Hansen infection in three Colombian tomato cultivars.
Article in BMC plant biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (Fol) is a compendium of pathogenic and non-pathogenic fungal strains. Pathogenic strains may cause vascular wilt disease and produce considerable losses in commercial tomato plots. To gain insight into the molecular mechanisms mediating resistance to Fol in tomato, the aim of our study was to characterize the transcriptional response of three cultivars (CT1, CT2 and IAC391) to a pathogenic (Fol-pt) and a non-pathogenic (Fo-npt) strain of Fo.
resultsAll cultivars exhibited differentially expressed genes in response to each strain of the fungus at 36 h post-inoculation. For the pathogenic strain, CT1 deployed an apparent active defense response that included upregulation of WRKY transcription factors, an extracellular chitinase, and terpenoid-related genes, among others. In IAC391, differentially expressed genes included upregulated but mostly downregulated genes. Upregulated genes mapped to ethylene regulation, pathogenesis regulation and transcription regulation, while downregulated genes potentially impacted defense responses, lipid transport and metal ion binding. Finally, CT2 exhibited mostly downregulated genes upon Fol-pt infection. This included genes involved in transcription regulation, defense responses, and metal ion binding.
conclusionsResults suggest that CT1 mounts a defense response against Fol-pt. IAC391 exhibits an intermediate phenotype whereby some defense response genes are activated, and others are suppressed. Finally, the transcriptional profile in the CT2 hints towards lower levels of resistance. Fo-npt also induced transcriptional changes in all cultivars, but to a lesser extent. Results of this study will support genetic breeding programs currently underway in the zone.
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.