ReviewThe New phytologist2026
Quiescence of postharvest pathogens: a fungal inhibition process or an immune response of the unripe host fruit?
Review in The New phytologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Postharvest pathogens can infect fresh produce both before and after harvest, by direct or wound-enhanced penetration, remaining quiescent until ripening. Biotrophic-like postharvest pathogens persist beneath host cells and can remain in a state of quiescence. They detect environmental cues and regulate quiescence through chromatin-level control and the secretion of effectors that interact with host pattern recognition receptors. By contrast, necrotrophic fungi persist between dead cells and depend more directly on nutrient availability to prime their growth and upon secretion for fungal virulence factors. During quiescence, the host also mounts specific responses, including activation of pattern recognition receptor genes, ethylene signaling (particularly in unripe fruit), and defense genes such as PR-10 and chitinases. Jasmonic acid and ethylene pathways synergistically enhance these defenses. As fruit ripens, the transition from quiescence to active necrotrophic growth is triggered, accelerating tissue decay. This activation is driven by several key factors, including weakened host defenses, decreased levels of antifungal compounds such as polyphenols, increased cell wall accessibility due to fruit softening and ripening-associated changes in signaling pathways, which alter environmental pH, carbon metabolism, and secondary metabolite production. These regulatory mechanisms collectively govern the timing and extent of fungal initiation of colonization during fruit senescence.
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.