↓ Skip to main content

Plant-Pathogen Interactions

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Plant-Pathogen Interactions'

Table of Contents

  1. Altmetric Badge
    Book Overview
  2. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 1 Galaxy as a platform for identifying candidate pathogen effectors.
  3. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 2 Bioinformatic analysis of expression data to identify effector candidates.
  4. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 3 Two-Dimensional Data Binning for the Analysis of Genome Architecture in Filamentous Plant Pathogens and Other Eukaryotes
  5. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 4 On the statistics of identifying candidate pathogen effectors.
  6. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 5 High-Throughput Imaging of Plant Immune Responses
  7. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 6 In Vivo Protein-Protein Interaction Studies with BiFC: Conditions, Cautions, and Caveats.
  8. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 7 Particle bombardment-mediated transient expression to identify localization signals in plant disease resistance proteins and target sites for the proteolytic activity of pathogen effectors.
  9. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 8 Purification of Fungal Haustoria from Infected Plant Tissue by Flow Cytometry
  10. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 9 Functional characterization of nematode effectors in plants.
  11. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 10 Silencing of Aphid Genes by Feeding on Stable Transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana.
  12. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 11 Leaf-Disc Assay Based on Transient Over-Expression in Nicotiana benthamiana to Allow Functional Screening of Candidate Effectors from Aphids.
  13. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 12 A Growth Quantification Assay for Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis Isolates in Arabidopsis thaliana
  14. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 13 Simple Quantification of In Planta Fungal Biomass
  15. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 14 Virus-Induced Gene Silencing and Agrobacterium tumefaciens-Mediated Transient Expression in Nicotiana tabacum
  16. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 15 DIGE-ABPP by Click Chemistry: Pairwise Comparison of Serine Hydrolase Activities from the Apoplast of Infected Plants.
  17. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 16 A Simple and Fast Protocol for the Protein Complex Immunoprecipitation (Co-IP) of Effector: Host Protein Complexes
  18. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 17 An Arabidopsis and Tomato Mesophyll Protoplast System for Fast Identification of Early MAMP-Triggered Immunity-Suppressing Effectors
  19. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 18 Production of RXLR Effector Proteins for Structural Analysis by X-Ray Crystallography
  20. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 19 The Do's and Don'ts of Effectoromics.
  21. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 20 Protoplast Cell Death Assay to Study Magnaporthe oryzae AVR Gene Function in Rice
  22. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 21 A Bacterial Type III Secretion-Based Delivery System for Functional Assays of Fungal Effectors in Cereals
  23. Altmetric Badge
    Chapter 22 Genomic DNA Library Preparation for Resistance Gene Enrichment and Sequencing (RenSeq) in Plants.
Attention for Chapter 4: On the statistics of identifying candidate pathogen effectors.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
On the statistics of identifying candidate pathogen effectors.
Chapter number 4
Book title
Plant-Pathogen Interactions
Published in
Methods in molecular biology, March 2014
DOI 10.1007/978-1-62703-986-4_4
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-62703-985-7, 978-1-62703-986-4
Authors

Pritchard L, Broadhurst D, Leighton Pritchard, David Broadhurst, Pritchard, Leighton, Broadhurst, David

Abstract

High-throughput sequencing is an increasingly accessible tool for cataloging gene complements of plant pathogens and their hosts. It has had great impact in plant pathology, enabling rapid acquisition of data for a wide range of pathogens and hosts, leading to the selection of novel candidate effector proteins, and/or associated host targets (Bart et al., Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A doi:10.1073/pnas.1208003109, 2012; Agbor and McCormick, Cell Microbiol 13:1858-1869, 2011; Fabro et al., PLoS Pathog 7:e1002348, 2011; Kim et al., Mol Plant Pathol 2:715-730, 2011; Kimbrel et al., Mol Plant Pathol 12:580-594, 2011; O'Brien et al., Curr Opin Microbiol 14:24-30, 2011; Vleeshouwers et al., Annu Rev Phytopathol 49:507-531, 2011; Sarris et al., Mol Plant Pathol 11:795-804, 2010; Boch and Bonas, Annu Rev Phytopathol 48:419-436, 2010; Mcdermott et al., Infect Immun 79:23-32, 2011).Identification of candidate effectors from genome data is not different from classification in any other high-content or high-throughput experiment. The primary aim is to discover a set of qualitative or quantitative sequence characteristics that discriminate, with a defined level of certainty, between proteins that have previously been identified as being either "effector" (positive) or "not effector" (negative). Combination of these characteristics in a mathematical model, or classifier, enables prediction of whether a protein is or is not an effector, with a defined level of certainty. High-throughput screening of the gene complement is then performed to identify candidate effectors; this may seem straightforward, but it is unfortunately very easy to identify seemingly persuasive candidate effectors that are, in fact, entirely spurious.The main sources of danger in this area of statistical modeling are not entirely independent of each other, and include: inappropriate choice of classifier model; poor selection of reference sequences (known positive and negative examples); poor definition of classes (what is, and what is not, an effector); inadequate training sample size; poor model validation; and lack of adequate model performance metrics (Xia et al., Metabolomics doi:10.1007/s11306-012-0482-9, 2012). Many studies fail to take these issues into account, and thereby fail to discover anything of true significance or, worse, report spurious findings that are impossible to validate. Here we summarize the impact of these issues and present strategies to assist in improving design and evaluation of effector classifiers, enabling robust scientific conclusions to be drawn from the available data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 5%
Brazil 1 5%
Unknown 18 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 30%
Lecturer 4 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 4 20%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 2 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 March 2020.
All research outputs
#17,731,162
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from Methods in molecular biology
#7,189
of 13,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,656
of 223,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Methods in molecular biology
#48
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,090 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 223,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.