Review



foph six1a  (GenScript corporation)

 
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 90
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    GenScript corporation foph six1a
    Pathogenicity tests on M82 tomato plants with Fol‐WT (WT), Fol‐ΔSIX1 (ΔSIX1) and 10 <t>Fol‐ΔSIX1:SIX1a</t> (SIX1a) transformants. (A, C) Photographs taken at 21 days post‐inoculation (dpi) of infected M82 plants from two experiments testing all 10 transformants. (B, D) Top panel in (B) shows the distribution of disease scores for plants shown in (A). Bottom panel in (B) shows the distribution of disease scores at 21 dpi for plants infected with wild‐type (WT), ΔSIX1 or SIX1a transformants 3, 16 or 17 (the transformants showing the highest disease scores from A) pooled from four replicate experiments (n = 38–40; results of individual replicates are shown in Fig. S11, see Supporting Information). (D) shows the distribution of disease scores at 21 dpi for plants infected with WT, ΔSIX1 or SIX1a transformants 22, 25, 28 or 29 pooled from two replicate experiments (n = 18–20; results of individual replicates are shown in Fig. S11). Treatments with different letters are significantly different at P = 0.05.
    Foph Six1a, supplied by GenScript corporation, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/whale+optimization+algorithm+based+fopi+controllers/pmc06638030-418-4-15?v=GenScript+corporation
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    foph six1a - by Bioz Stars, 2026-07
    90/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "Evidence for horizontal gene transfer and separation of effector recognition from effector function revealed by analysis of effector genes shared between cape gooseberry‐ and tomato‐infecting formae speciales of Fusarium oxysporum"

    Article Title: Evidence for horizontal gene transfer and separation of effector recognition from effector function revealed by analysis of effector genes shared between cape gooseberry‐ and tomato‐infecting formae speciales of Fusarium oxysporum

    Journal: Molecular Plant Pathology

    doi: 10.1111/mpp.12700

    Pathogenicity tests on M82 tomato plants with Fol‐WT (WT), Fol‐ΔSIX1 (ΔSIX1) and 10 Fol‐ΔSIX1:SIX1a (SIX1a) transformants. (A, C) Photographs taken at 21 days post‐inoculation (dpi) of infected M82 plants from two experiments testing all 10 transformants. (B, D) Top panel in (B) shows the distribution of disease scores for plants shown in (A). Bottom panel in (B) shows the distribution of disease scores at 21 dpi for plants infected with wild‐type (WT), ΔSIX1 or SIX1a transformants 3, 16 or 17 (the transformants showing the highest disease scores from A) pooled from four replicate experiments (n = 38–40; results of individual replicates are shown in Fig. S11, see Supporting Information). (D) shows the distribution of disease scores at 21 dpi for plants infected with WT, ΔSIX1 or SIX1a transformants 22, 25, 28 or 29 pooled from two replicate experiments (n = 18–20; results of individual replicates are shown in Fig. S11). Treatments with different letters are significantly different at P = 0.05.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Pathogenicity tests on M82 tomato plants with Fol‐WT (WT), Fol‐ΔSIX1 (ΔSIX1) and 10 Fol‐ΔSIX1:SIX1a (SIX1a) transformants. (A, C) Photographs taken at 21 days post‐inoculation (dpi) of infected M82 plants from two experiments testing all 10 transformants. (B, D) Top panel in (B) shows the distribution of disease scores for plants shown in (A). Bottom panel in (B) shows the distribution of disease scores at 21 dpi for plants infected with wild‐type (WT), ΔSIX1 or SIX1a transformants 3, 16 or 17 (the transformants showing the highest disease scores from A) pooled from four replicate experiments (n = 38–40; results of individual replicates are shown in Fig. S11, see Supporting Information). (D) shows the distribution of disease scores at 21 dpi for plants infected with WT, ΔSIX1 or SIX1a transformants 22, 25, 28 or 29 pooled from two replicate experiments (n = 18–20; results of individual replicates are shown in Fig. S11). Treatments with different letters are significantly different at P = 0.05.

    Techniques Used: Infection

    Reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) analysis showing the expression of Fusarium oxysporumf. sp. physali (Foph) SIX1a or Foph SIX1btransgenes in tomato roots infected with Fol‐ΔSIX1:SIX1a/b transformants at 3 and 6 days post‐inoculation (dpi). Top gel images show bands (expected size of 250 bp) consistent with SIX1a and SIX1bexpression in Fol‐ΔSIX1:SIX1a/b‐infected roots, compared with mock‐, Fol‐WT‐ or Fol‐ΔSIX1‐inoculated controls. Bottom gel images show bands (expected size of 201 bp with RT_Fem1 primers in the SIX1a experiment and 250 bp with q_Fem1 primers in the SIX1b experiment) consistent with FEM1 expression in Fusarium oxysporumf. sp. lycopersici (Fol)‐infected tomato roots.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Reverse transcriptase‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) analysis showing the expression of Fusarium oxysporumf. sp. physali (Foph) SIX1a or Foph SIX1btransgenes in tomato roots infected with Fol‐ΔSIX1:SIX1a/b transformants at 3 and 6 days post‐inoculation (dpi). Top gel images show bands (expected size of 250 bp) consistent with SIX1a and SIX1bexpression in Fol‐ΔSIX1:SIX1a/b‐infected roots, compared with mock‐, Fol‐WT‐ or Fol‐ΔSIX1‐inoculated controls. Bottom gel images show bands (expected size of 201 bp with RT_Fem1 primers in the SIX1a experiment and 250 bp with q_Fem1 primers in the SIX1b experiment) consistent with FEM1 expression in Fusarium oxysporumf. sp. lycopersici (Fol)‐infected tomato roots.

    Techniques Used: Reverse Transcription, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction, Expressing, Infection

    Pathogenicity tests on IL7‐3 tomato plants with Fol‐WT (WT), Fol‐ΔSIX1 (ΔSIX1) or Fol‐ΔSIX1:SIX1a/btransformants. (A) Photographs taken at 21 days post‐inoculation (dpi) of IL7‐3 plants infected with Fol‐WT (WT), Fol‐ΔSIX1 (ΔSIX1), Fol‐ΔSIX1:SIX1a transformants 3 or 16 or Fol‐ΔSIX1:SIX1b transformants 3 or 4 from one of three replicate experiments. (B) Distribution of disease scores at 21 dpi for plants shown in (A) and two additional replicates (n = 28–30). Treatments with different letters are significantly different at P = 0.05.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Pathogenicity tests on IL7‐3 tomato plants with Fol‐WT (WT), Fol‐ΔSIX1 (ΔSIX1) or Fol‐ΔSIX1:SIX1a/btransformants. (A) Photographs taken at 21 days post‐inoculation (dpi) of IL7‐3 plants infected with Fol‐WT (WT), Fol‐ΔSIX1 (ΔSIX1), Fol‐ΔSIX1:SIX1a transformants 3 or 16 or Fol‐ΔSIX1:SIX1b transformants 3 or 4 from one of three replicate experiments. (B) Distribution of disease scores at 21 dpi for plants shown in (A) and two additional replicates (n = 28–30). Treatments with different letters are significantly different at P = 0.05.

    Techniques Used: Infection

    Sequence alignment of Fusarium oxysporumf. sp. lycopersici (Fol) SIX1, Fusarium oxysporumf. sp. physali (Foph) SIX1a and FophSIX1b highlighting positions showing evidence for diversifying and purifying selection among 18 different SIX1 sequences from Fusarium oxysporum.Positions showing evidence for diversifying selection detected using FUBAR, FEL or MEME are highlighted in blue, red and green, respectively.Positions showing evidence for purifying selection detected using FUBAR or FEL are highlighted in dark brown and olive green, respectively.Numbers above the sequence alignment indicate hypervariable positions showing four or more different residues among the 18 sequences analysed. Regions highlighted in grey indicate positions excluded from analysis owing to deletions of three or more amino acid residues in a number of sequences. The predicted signal peptide is boxed and the predicted pro‐peptide region delimited by a Kex2 cleavage site (highlighted in purple) is underlined. Asparagine residues in predicted N‐glycosylation sites are shown in italics and are highlighted in yellow unless located at a position showing purifying selection. Cysteine residues predicted to be involved in disulfide bond formation are highlighted in black unless located at a position showing purifying selection. A hypervariable region showing a high proportion of positions undergoing diversifying selection is underlined with a dotted line. Residues shared between FolSIX1 and FophSIX1b are shown in bold font. Residues unique to Fol SIX1 (relative to FophSIX1a and SIX1b) are double underlined.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Sequence alignment of Fusarium oxysporumf. sp. lycopersici (Fol) SIX1, Fusarium oxysporumf. sp. physali (Foph) SIX1a and FophSIX1b highlighting positions showing evidence for diversifying and purifying selection among 18 different SIX1 sequences from Fusarium oxysporum.Positions showing evidence for diversifying selection detected using FUBAR, FEL or MEME are highlighted in blue, red and green, respectively.Positions showing evidence for purifying selection detected using FUBAR or FEL are highlighted in dark brown and olive green, respectively.Numbers above the sequence alignment indicate hypervariable positions showing four or more different residues among the 18 sequences analysed. Regions highlighted in grey indicate positions excluded from analysis owing to deletions of three or more amino acid residues in a number of sequences. The predicted signal peptide is boxed and the predicted pro‐peptide region delimited by a Kex2 cleavage site (highlighted in purple) is underlined. Asparagine residues in predicted N‐glycosylation sites are shown in italics and are highlighted in yellow unless located at a position showing purifying selection. Cysteine residues predicted to be involved in disulfide bond formation are highlighted in black unless located at a position showing purifying selection. A hypervariable region showing a high proportion of positions undergoing diversifying selection is underlined with a dotted line. Residues shared between FolSIX1 and FophSIX1b are shown in bold font. Residues unique to Fol SIX1 (relative to FophSIX1a and SIX1b) are double underlined.

    Techniques Used: Sequencing, Selection, Glycoproteomics



    Similar Products

    whale optimization algorithm based fopi controllers  (Statcom Co Ltd)
    90
    Statcom Co Ltd whale optimization algorithm based fopi controllers
    Whale Optimization Algorithm Based Fopi Controllers, supplied by Statcom Co Ltd, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/whale+optimization+algorithm+based+fopi+controllers/pm37631683-701-2-9?v=Statcom+Co+Ltd
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    whale optimization algorithm based fopi controllers - by Bioz Stars, 2026-07
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results