ArticleNature communications2026
Dissecting root-specific non-conventional effector-triggered immunity and its role in defense and shifting the microbiome.
Article in Nature communications, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Plant roots are extremely heterogeneous and non-photosynthetic tissue that is drastically different from leaves. Pioneering studies have revealed the existence of pattern-triggered immune responses in roots; however, whether roots mount tissue-specific effector-triggered immunity (ETI) is a fundamental question in plant immunity. By utilizing inducible effector-expressing lines, we systematically characterize non-conventional physiological and molecular responses during ETI activation in roots. Root ETI seems to be weaker than leaf ETI, evidenced by restricted cell death in the transition zone and fewer number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs). Root ETI also shows much higher DEG overlap with Pep1-triggered immunity than with Flg22-triggered responses, which is the opposite trend in leaves. We find that both PEPR1/2 receptors and BIK1, WRKY42 are required for induced root ETI responses. By comparing root responses to wild type and the T3SS mutant of Ralstonia solanacearum in the Nd-1 ecotype, we confirm that natural root ETI responses show similarities to induced ETI. Our work reveals tissue-specific features of root ETI and provides new insights into engineering root disease resistance in agriculture.
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.