ArticleMolecular plant pathology2025
Evaluating the Negative-Strand Coding Potential in Plum Pox Virus.
Article in Molecular plant pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Competition among co-infecting potyviral chimeras with adaptive, single-nucleotide differences in HCPro: Properties, and influence of environment factors on outcomes.PLoS pathogens · 2026Article
- Discovery of novel viruses related to theVirus evolution · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Negative-Strand Coding Potential in Plum Pox Virus.Molecular plant pathology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent studies proposed that the negative strands of some single-stranded, positive-sense RNA viruses contain reverse open reading frames (rORFs) that encode functional peptides. Highly conserved rORFs were found in the negative strand of viruses within the Potyviridae family, including turnip mosaic virus (TuMV), where rORF2 was shown to be essential for infection and survival. In this study, we analysed the existence and potential functionality of rORFs in plum pox virus (PPV) using mass spectrometry and mutagenesis. Unbiased mass spectrometry analyses failed to identify any rORF-encoded peptides and PPV mutants abolishing the expression of individual rORF-derived peptides showed no significant difference in infection rates compared to the wild-type virus in the experimental host Nicotiana benthamiana or in the natural host Prunus persica. Furthermore, competitive infection experiments revealed that neither the wild type nor the rORF2 knockout mutant, which had proven lethal when tested in TuMV, exhibited any competitive advantage over the other. Taken together, these findings suggest that rORFs in PPV are either not produced or are functionally irrelevant for infection, and they highlight the need to evaluate the role of rORFs in other potyviruses on a case-by-case basis.
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.