Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21255277›Full record

ReviewMicrobial biotechnology2009

Bacterial responses and interactions with plants during rhizoremediation.

Ana Segura, Sara Rodríguez-Conde, Cayo Ramos, Juan L Ramos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microbial biotechnology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 3 Biotech · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Advances and perspective in bioremediation of polychlorinated biphenyl-contaminated soils.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ana SeguraConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Estación Experimental del Zaidín, Department of Environmental Microbiology, Professor Albareda 1, E-18008 Granada, Spain. ana.segura@eez.csic.es
Sara Rodríguez-Conde
Cayo Ramos
Juan L Ramos

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the increase in quality of life standards and the awareness of environmental issues, the remediation of polluted sites has become a priority for society. Because of the high economic cost of physico-chemical strategies for remediation, the use of biological tools for cleaning-up contaminated sites is a very attractive option. Rhizoremediation, the use of rhizospheric microorganisms in the bioremediation of contaminants, is the biotechnological approach that we explore in this minireview. We focus our attention on bacterial interactions with the plant surface, responses towards root exudates, and how plants and microbes communicate. We analyse certain strategies that may improve rhizoremediation, including the utilization of endophytes, and finally we discuss several rhizoremediation strategies that have opened ways to improve biodegradation.

Indexed as

RhizosphereSymbiosisBacteriaBiodegradation, EnvironmentalPlant RootsPlantsSoil PollutantsSoil Pollutants

Identifiers

PMID21255277
PMCPMC3815906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.