Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

As scientists we have to stick to the scientific guidelines when creating definitions, whether they are scientifically correct or not and the definitions must adhere to linguistic meanings, otherwise once mistakes are made it becomes very difficult to rectify them. It is unfortunate that the terminology used in publications may become part of textbooks misleading young minds and future scientists, whom we have the responsibility to educate with an open mind, without leading to any assumption. This requires respect of the previous use of terms to describe the same phenomenon yet the terms, which are introduced must be flexible enough to accommodate definitions as our knowledge base broadens by the development of new technologies that may not be currently available.

It is certainly hoped that this attempt to correct the terminology will be recognized by colleagues as a friendly suggestion and will be used in coming publications to further avoid any confusion that may arise by using synonyms to describe different phenomenon and every attempt to correct this error should be made.

Though resistance and susceptibility to pathogens are often specific and biochemicals determining this specificity have specific structures and receptors, nonspecific agents and multiple signals and pathways for their transduction can also induce resistance to unrelated pathogens and toxicants. This makes the possibility of finding additional effective agents for ISR and disease control highly promising. The agents need not be patented, expensive, or complex. Much more research is needed on the use of ISR agents to reduce dependence on chemical pesticides and enhance utilization of high-yielding plants that presently have a level of resistance that is inadequate for disease control under high pathogen pressure. ISR does not depend upon introducing genes into the plants, and it would not meet the resistance from the public engendered by genetically modified plants. ISR should be increasingly incorporated into integrated pest management practices. Increased funding and information exchange is needed to better utilize and direct the rapidly emerging information concerning signals, receptors, signal transduction, and gene expression for the practical control of plant disease.

As scientists we have to stick to the scientific guidelines when creating definitions, whether they are scientifically correct or not and the definitions must adhere to linguistic meanings, otherwise once mistakes are made it becomes very difficult to rectify them. It is unfortunate that the terminology used in publications may become part of textbooks misleading young minds and future scientists, whom we have the responsibility to educate with an open mind, without leading to any assumption. This requires respect of the previous use of terms to describe the same phenomenon yet the terms, which are introduced must be flexible enough to accommodate definitions as our knowledge base broadens by the development of new technologies that may not be currently available.

It is certainly hoped that this attempt to correct the terminology will be recognized by colleagues as a friendly suggestion and will be used in coming publications to further avoid any confusion that may arise by using synonyms to describe different phenomenon and every attempt to correct this error should be made.

Over the past two decades, a number of different approaches have been considered by plant pathologists toward enhancing plant disease resistance. Among these, the use of non-specific resistance elicitors as part of an integrated disease control strategy offers exciting opportunities. However, it is clear that unequivocal answers to key questions, including the stability and persistence of the induced host response, the efficiency of such agents, products and/or molecules under commercial conditions, and their suitability in an integrated crop protection system, need to be answered before elicitors can be considered as powerful crop protectants. In spite of these limitations, the recent advances in our fundamental understanding of the nature of microbially- and chitosan-mediated induced resistance in plants highlights the great potential of induced resistance in plant protection. The demonstration that pathogen growth and development were restricted or even halted and that structural and biochemical barriers were elaborated in plant tissues underlying areas of pathogen penetration gives reason to believe that induced resistance may be active against a wide array of pathogens and even insects, thereby increasing the level of resistance. It is clear that exploiting plant induced resistance as an alternative strategy of disease and pest management clearly meets with the current needs toward sustainable agriculture at a lower environmental cost. However, coordinated research efforts are still needed to develop programmes dealing with molecular genetic analyses, formulation studies, and large-scale experiments.

As scientists we have to stick to the scientific guidelines when creating definitions, whether they are scientifically correct or not and the definitions must adhere to linguistic meanings, otherwise once mistakes are made it becomes very difficult to rectify them. It is unfortunate that the terminology used in publications may become part of textbooks misleading young minds and future scientists, whom we have the responsibility to educate with an open mind, without leading to any assumption. This requires respect of the previous use of terms to describe the same phenomenon yet the terms, which are introduced must be flexible enough to accommodate definitions as our knowledge base broadens by the development of new technologies that may not be currently available.

It is certainly hoped that this attempt to correct the terminology will be recognized by colleagues as a friendly suggestion and will be used in coming publications to further avoid any confusion that may arise by using synonyms to describe different phenomenon and every attempt to correct this error should be made.

Timely accumulation of PR proteins during pathogenesis can be suggested as a part of defense mechanisms in plants against pathogens and pests. Some of these proteins may have a different role in plant metabolism and/or may just occur there as a part of regulatory systems overall happening during the plant—pathogen interactions. Specific isozymes of the hydrolytic enzymes, on the other hand, which demonstrate differential activity toward the substrate during the release of elicitor molecules from the pathogens may have been evolved as a part of defense mechanisms in “naturally resistant plants”. Such isozymes may be bred into the resistant lines of crop varieties act as recognition mechanism to initiate the whole battery of defense mechanisms. It is also clear that some of PR-proteins such as osmotins and hydrolytic enzymes have a direct involvement in reduction of pathogenesis as evidenced by genetic studies as well as microscopic observations. However, it is important to recognize that plant defense mechanisms are complex and more than one factor is involved in the successful existence of plant species over the centuries under the abundance of numerous organisms that can be potentially harmful to plants. Nevertheless pathogenesis is an exception, and is a result of failure of many pathways to be activated in a timely manner. PR proteins are certainly there for a reason, whether they are a part of a major defense mechanisms or not, according to the inducer, they are a part of induced systemic resistance and more studies will further show that they may be the reason of successful breeding efforts, which we have been doing over the centuries to breed disease resistant varieties carrying more than one gene for resistance.

As scientists we have to stick to the scientific guidelines when creating definitions, whether they are scientifically correct or not and the definitions must adhere to linguistic meanings, otherwise once mistakes are made it becomes very difficult to rectify them. It is unfortunate that the terminology used in publications may become part of textbooks misleading young minds and future scientists, whom we have the responsibility to educate with an open mind, without leading to any assumption. This requires respect of the previous use of terms to describe the same phenomenon yet the terms, which are introduced must be flexible enough to accommodate definitions as our knowledge base broadens by the development of new technologies that may not be currently available.

It is certainly hoped that this attempt to correct the terminology will be recognized by colleagues as a friendly suggestion and will be used in coming publications to further avoid any confusion that may arise by using synonyms to describe different phenomenon and every attempt to correct this error should be made.

As scientists we have to stick to the scientific guidelines when creating definitions, whether they are scientifically correct or not and the definitions must adhere to linguistic meanings, otherwise once mistakes are made it becomes very difficult to rectify them. It is unfortunate that the terminology used in publications may become part of textbooks misleading young minds and future scientists, whom we have the responsibility to educate with an open mind, without leading to any assumption. This requires respect of the previous use of terms to describe the same phenomenon yet the terms, which are introduced must be flexible enough to accommodate definitions as our knowledge base broadens by the development of new technologies that may not be currently available.

It is certainly hoped that this attempt to correct the terminology will be recognized by colleagues as a friendly suggestion and will be used in coming publications to further avoid any confusion that may arise by using synonyms to describe different phenomenon and every attempt to correct this error should be made.

Over the past two decades, a number of different approaches have been considered by plant pathologists toward enhancing plant disease resistance. Among these, the use of non-specific resistance elicitors as part of an integrated disease control strategy offers exciting opportunities. However, it is clear that unequivocal answers to key questions, including the stability and persistence of the induced host response, the efficiency of such agents, products and/or molecules under commercial conditions, and their suitability in an integrated crop protection system, need to be answered before elicitors can be considered as powerful crop protectants. In spite of these limitations, the recent advances in our fundamental understanding of the nature of microbially- and chitosan-mediated induced resistance in plants highlights the great potential of induced resistance in plant protection. The demonstration that pathogen growth and development were restricted or even halted and that structural and biochemical barriers were elaborated in plant tissues underlying areas of pathogen penetration gives reason to believe that induced resistance may be active against a wide array of pathogens and even insects, thereby increasing the level of resistance. It is clear that exploiting plant induced resistance as an alternative strategy of disease and pest management clearly meets with the current needs toward sustainable agriculture at a lower environmental cost. However, coordinated research efforts are still needed to develop programmes dealing with molecular genetic analyses, formulation studies, and large-scale experiments.

Over the past two decades, a number of different approaches have been considered by plant pathologists toward enhancing plant disease resistance. Among these, the use of non-specific resistance elicitors as part of an integrated disease control strategy offers exciting opportunities. However, it is clear that unequivocal answers to key questions, including the stability and persistence of the induced host response, the efficiency of such agents, products and/or molecules under commercial conditions, and their suitability in an integrated crop protection system, need to be answered before elicitors can be considered as powerful crop protectants. In spite of these limitations, the recent advances in our fundamental understanding of the nature of microbially- and chitosan-mediated induced resistance in plants highlights the great potential of induced resistance in plant protection. The demonstration that pathogen growth and development were restricted or even halted and that structural and biochemical barriers were elaborated in plant tissues underlying areas of pathogen penetration gives reason to believe that induced resistance may be active against a wide array of pathogens and even insects, thereby increasing the level of resistance. It is clear that exploiting plant induced resistance as an alternative strategy of disease and pest management clearly meets with the current needs toward sustainable agriculture at a lower environmental cost. However, coordinated research efforts are still needed to develop programmes dealing with molecular genetic analyses, formulation studies, and large-scale experiments.