Cross-talk between plant defence signalling pathways: boost or burden?

By C. Pieterse, J. Ton, L. C. van Loon. 2001

128 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ea5dd6bb32ded702f74cdc286dae3b5e3e05278c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. A. Ambrosini
2. L. Passaglia
3. A. Beneduzi
4. N. R. Mustafa
5. R. Verpoorte
6. Rocheli de Souza

Citations in the corpus

• Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): Their potential as antagonists and biocontrol agents (2012, background): “The dependency of ISR on JA and ethylene is based on enhanced sensitivity to these hormones rather than on an increase in their production (Pieterse et al., 2000, 2001).”
• Emerging microbial biocontrol strategies for plant pathogens. (2018, unknown): “…typically SA activates an HR leading to localized PCD that limits pathogen spread, together with the production of PRs, ROS detoxifying enzymes and antioxidants which exhibit antimicrobial properties and provide protection against oxidative stress, respectively, in the surrounding tissues [92].”
• Phenolic compounds in Catharanthus roseus (2007, background): “However, a cross talk between the SA-dependent pathways and SA-independent pathways can occur in an attacked plant (van Wees et al., 2000; Pieterse et al., 2001; Kunkel and Brooks 2002).”