↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of Secretion Prediction Highlights Differing Approaches Needed for Oomycete and Fungal Effectors

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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.
Title
Evaluation of Secretion Prediction Highlights Differing Approaches Needed for Oomycete and Fungal Effectors
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, December 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2015.01168
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jana Sperschneider, Angela H. Williams, James K. Hane, Karam B. Singh, Jennifer M. Taylor

Abstract

The steadily increasing number of sequenced fungal and oomycete genomes has enabled detailed studies of how these eukaryotic microbes infect plants and cause devastating losses in food crops. During infection, fungal and oomycete pathogens secrete effector molecules which manipulate host plant cell processes to the pathogen's advantage. Proteinaceous effectors are synthesized intracellularly and must be externalized to interact with host cells. Computational prediction of secreted proteins from genomic sequences is an important technique to narrow down the candidate effector repertoire for subsequent experimental validation. In this study, we benchmark secretion prediction tools on experimentally validated fungal and oomycete effectors. We observe that for a set of fungal SwissProt protein sequences, SignalP 4 and the neural network predictors of SignalP 3 (D-score) and SignalP 2 perform best. For effector prediction in particular, the use of a sensitive method can be desirable to obtain the most complete candidate effector set. We show that the neural network predictors of SignalP 2 and 3, as well as TargetP were the most sensitive tools for fungal effector secretion prediction, whereas the hidden Markov model predictors of SignalP 2 and 3 were the most sensitive tools for oomycete effectors. Thus, previous versions of SignalP retain value for oomycete effector prediction, as the current version, SignalP 4, was unable to reliably predict the signal peptide of the oomycete Crinkler effectors in the test set. Our assessment of subcellular localization predictors shows that cytoplasmic effectors are often predicted as not extracellular. This limits the reliability of secretion predictions that depend on these tools. We present our assessment with a view to informing future pathogenomics studies and suggest revised pipelines for secretion prediction to obtain optimal effector predictions in fungi and oomycetes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 111 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 25%
Student > Master 19 17%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 19 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 64 57%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 <1%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 20 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 July 2016.
All research outputs
#5,065,870
of 25,245,273 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#2,616
of 24,291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,008
of 402,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#28
of 402 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,245,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,291 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
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 402,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 402 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.