Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21421777›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2011

Protection of Arabidopsis thaliana against leaf-pathogenic Pseudomonas syringae by Sphingomonas strains in a controlled model system.

Gerd Innerebner, Claudia Knief, Julia A Vorholt

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 264 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
264citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
17.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

264 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 601 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Specialization of independently acquired flagellar FliC proteins in plant-associatedProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Changes in the Microbial Communities ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Disease-induced changes inFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article

204 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gerd InnerebnerInstitute of Microbiology, ETH Zurich, Wolfgang-Pauli-Strasse 10, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland.
Claudia Knief
Julia A Vorholt
ETH Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diverse bacterial taxa live in association with plants without causing deleterious effects. Previous analyses of phyllosphere communities revealed the predominance of few bacterial genera on healthy dicotyl plants, provoking the question of whether these commensals play a particular role in plant protection. Here, we tested two of them, Methylobacterium and Sphingomonas, with respect to their ability to diminish disease symptom formation and the proliferation of the foliar plant pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 on Arabidopsis thaliana. Plants were grown under gnotobiotic conditions in the absence or presence of the potential antagonists and then challenged with the pathogen. No effect of Methylobacterium strains on disease development was observed. However, members of the genus Sphingomonas showed a striking plant-protective effect by suppressing disease symptoms and diminishing pathogen growth. A survey of different Sphingomonas strains revealed that most plant isolates protected A. thaliana plants from developing severe disease symptoms. This was not true for Sphingomonas strains isolated from air, dust, or water, even when they reached cell densities in the phyllosphere comparable to those of the plant isolates. This suggests that plant protection is common among plant-colonizing Sphingomonas spp. but is not a general trait conserved within the genus Sphingomonas. The carbon source profiling of representative isolates revealed differences between protecting and nonprotecting strains, suggesting that substrate competition plays a role in plant protection by Sphingomonas. However, other mechanisms cannot be excluded at this time. In conclusion, the ability to protect plants as shown here in a model system may be an unexplored, common trait of indigenous Sphingomonas spp. and may be of relevance under natural conditions.

Indexed as

AntibiosisArabidopsisBacterial LoadCluster AnalysisDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalMethylobacteriumMolecular Sequence DataPest Control, BiologicalPhylogenyPlant DiseasesPseudomonas syringaeRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNASphingomonasDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID21421777
PMCPMC3126462
OpenAlexW2058105775

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.