Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24003903›Full record

ReviewFEMS microbiology ecology2014

Progress in cultivation-independent phyllosphere microbiology.

Thomas Müller, Silke Ruppel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in FEMS microbiology ecology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing 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

56 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Applied microbiology of the phyllosphere.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024
    Review
  9. Microbiome-Mediated Protection against Pathogens in Woody Plants.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Thomas MüllerLeibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Müncheberg, Institute of Landscape Biogeochemistry, Müncheberg, Germany.
Silke Ruppel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most microorganisms of the phyllosphere are nonculturable in commonly used media and culture conditions, as are those in other natural environments. This review queries the reasons for their 'noncultivability' and assesses developments in phyllospere microbiology that have been achieved cultivation independently over the last 4 years. Analyses of total microbial communities have revealed a comprehensive microbial diversity. 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing and metagenomic sequencing were applied to investigate plant species, location and season as variables affecting the composition of these communities. In continuation to culture-based enzymatic and metabolic studies with individual isolates, metaproteogenomic approaches reveal a great potential to study the physiology of microbial communities in situ. Culture-independent microbiological technologies as well advances in plant genetics and biochemistry provide methodological preconditions for exploring the interactions between plants and their microbiome in the phyllosphere. Improving and combining cultivation and culture-independent techniques can contribute to a better understanding of the phyllosphere ecology. This is essential, for example, to avoid human-pathogenic bacteria in plant food.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriaBacterial InfectionsHumansMetagenomicsPlantsenteric human pathogensinteractions between plants and microorganismsmicrobial genetic and metabolic diversitynonculturability

Identifiers

PMID24003903
PMCPMC3906827

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.