ArticleGenes2022
Expression Activity of Artificial Promoters for Disease Resistance in Transgenic
Article in Genes, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- GWSF-EuSWAP70 gene expression to enhance gray mold resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- Article
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 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The transcriptional properties of artificial promoters are closely related to the type and arrangement position of cis-elements. GWSF (374-bp) was an effective SPIP with four cis-element dimers. There were four pathogen-inducible cis-elements in the GWSF promoter (GST1-boxes, W-boxes, S-boxes, and F-boxes) and a minimal cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter. V-element dimers were inserted into the upstream (VGWSF), midstream (GWVSF), and downstream (GWSFV) regions of the original GWSF promoter sequence to examine their affect on the position. The expression activity of promoters was analyzed and estimated using the histochemical staining of leaf discs of eucalyptus with transient expression, an image digitization method to extract the color features, and the induction treatment by a plant pathogenic microorganism/inducer and qPCR assays. The histochemical staining results of the adventitious buds indicated that the promoters had been successfully integrated into the E. urophylla genome and that they drove the expression of the gus gene. There was a noticeable difference in the intensity of color between the adventitious buds on the same callus block, as well as the intensity of color within the same adventitious bud. According to the established two-factor model of blue value, there was a greater difference between the levels of the genotype factor than the promoter factor in eucalyptus leaf discs. Further, the basal and inducible transcriptional levels of the three improved promoters were investigated by qPCR. With the basal transcriptional level of the GWSF promoter normalized to one, the relative basal levels of VGWSF, GWVSF, and GWSFV were 1.40, 1.45, and 4.15, respectively. The qPCR results were consistent with the staining results of GUS histochemical staining. The three improved promoters all had the properties of being induced by salicylic acid, Ralstonia solanacearum, and Phytophthora capsici. The three improved promoters demonstrated a significantly higher TMV induction activity: their induction activity from high to low was GWSFV > GWVSF > VGWSF. The findings will be beneficial to the construction and optimization of artificial promoters for transgenic plants.
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.