Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22830034›Full record

ArticleJournal of lipids2012

Use of the signature Fatty Acid 16:1ω5 as a tool to determine the distribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in soil.

Christopher Ngosong, Elke Gabriel, Liliane Ruess

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of lipids, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Shifting systems: prerequisites for the application of quantitative fatty acid signature analysis in soil food webs.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
  16. Soil microbial restoration strategies for promoting climate-ready prairie ecosystems.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2019
    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

3 authors.

Christopher NgosongInstitute of Biology, Ecology Group, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philippstraße 13, 10115 Berlin, Germany.
Elke Gabriel
Liliane Ruess

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomass estimation of arbuscular mycorrhiza (AM) fungi, widespread plant root symbionts, commonly employs lipid biomarkers, predominantly the fatty acid 16:1ω5. We briefly reviewed the application of this signature fatty acid, followed by a case study comparing biochemical markers with microscopic techniques in an arable soil following a change to AM non-host plants after 27 years of continuous host crops, that is, two successive cropping seasons with wheat followed by amaranth. After switching to the non-host amaranth, spore biomass estimated by the neutral lipid fatty acid (NLFA) 16:1ω5 decreased to almost nil, whereas microscopic spore counts decreased by about 50% only. In contrast, AM hyphal biomass assessed by the phospholipid (PLFA) 16:1ω5 was greater under amaranth than wheat. The application of PLFA 16:1ω5 as biomarker was hampered by background level derived from bacteria, and further enhanced by its incorporation from degrading spores used as microbial resource. Meanwhile, biochemical and morphological assessments showed negative correlation for spores and none for hyphal biomass. In conclusion, the NLFA 16:1ω5 appears to be a feasible indicator for AM fungi of the Glomales group in the complex field soils, whereas the use of PLFA 16:1ω5 for hyphae is unsuitable and should be restricted to controlled laboratory studies.

Identifiers

PMID22830034
PMCPMC3398647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.