ArticleBMC plant biology2025
Transcriptional time-course analysis during ash dieback infection revealed different responses in tolerant and susceptible Fraxinus excelsior genotypes.
Article in BMC plant biology, 2025. 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.
- European ash pangenome reveals widespread structural variation and genetic basis of low ash dieback susceptibility.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Ulmus minor response to Dutch elm disease: de novo transcriptome assembly and annotation.Scientific data · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hymenoscyphus fraxineus, the causal agent of Ash Dieback (ADB), has been introduced to eastern Europe in the 1990s from where it spread causing decline in European ash populations. However, the genetic basis of the molecular response in tolerant and susceptible ash trees to this disease is still largely unknown. We performed RNA-sequencing to study the transcriptomic response to the disease in four ash genotypes (ADB-tolerant FAR3 and FS36, and ADB-susceptible UW1 and UW2), during a time-course of 7, 14, 21, and 28 days post-inoculation, including mock-inoculated trees as control samples for each sampling time point. The analysis yielded 395 and 500 Differentially Expressed Genes (DEGs) along the response for ADB-tolerant FAR3 and FS36, respectively, while ADB-susceptible UW1 and UW2 revealed 194 and 571 DEGs, respectively, with most DEGs found exclusively in just one of the genotypes. DEGs shared between tolerant genotypes FAR3 and FS36, included genes involved in the production of phytoalexins and other secondary metabolites with roles in plant defense. Moreover, we identified an earlier expression of genes involved in both pattern- and effector-triggered immunity (PTI and ETI) in ADB-tolerant genotypes, while in ADB-susceptible genotypes both responses were delayed (late response). Overall, these results revealed different transcriptomic expression patterns not only between ADB-tolerant and ADB-susceptible genotypes, but also within these two groups. This hints to individual responses in the natural tolerance to ADB, possibly revealing diversified strategies across ash genotypes.
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.