Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24454903›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Unravelling the diversity of grapevine microbiome.

Cátia Pinto, Diogo Pinho, Susana Sousa, Miguel Pinheiro, Conceição Egas, Ana C Gomes

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 143 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
143citing papers in PubMed
30.2field-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

143 citing papers in PubMed, 276 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. AJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Plant Growth-Promoting Yeasts fromJournal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Frontiers in plant science · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

83 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cátia PintoGenomics Unit, Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede, Portugal.
Diogo PinhoGenomics Unit, Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede, Portugal.
Susana SousaGenomics Unit, Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede, Portugal.
Miguel PinheiroAdvanced Services Unit, Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede, Portugal.
Conceição EgasAdvanced Services Unit, Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede, Portugal.
Ana C GomesGenomics Unit, Biocant - Biotechnology Innovation Center, Cantanhede, Portugal.
Biocant · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vitis vinifera is one of the most widely cultivated fruit crops with a great economic impact on the global industry. As a plant, it is naturally colonised by a wide variety of both prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms that interact with grapevine, having either beneficial or phytopathogenic effects, who play a major role in fruit yield, grape quality and, ultimately, in the evolution of grape fermentation and wine production. Therefore, the objective of this study was to extensively characterize the natural microbiome of grapevine. Considering that the majority of microorganisms are uncultivable, we have deeply studied the microflora of grapevine leaves using massive parallel rDNA sequencing, along its vegetative cycle. Among eukaryotic population the most abundant microorganisms belonged to the early diverging fungi lineages and Ascomycota phylum, whereas the Basidiomycota were the least abundant. Regarding prokaryotes, a high diversity of Proteobacteria, Firmicutes and Actinobacteria was unveiled. Indeed, the microbial communities present in the vineyard during its vegetative cycle were shown to be highly structured and dynamic. In all cases, the major abundant microorganisms were the yeast-like fungus Aureobasidium and the prokaryotic Enterobacteriaceae. Herein, we report the first complete microbiome landscape of the vineyard, through a metagenomic approach, and highlight the analysis of the microbial interactions within the vineyard and its importance for the equilibrium of the microecosystem of grapevines.

Indexed as

AscomycotaBasidiomycotaBiodiversityDNA, BacterialDNA, FungalDNA, Ribosomal SpacerEnterobacteriaceaeMicrobiotaMolecular TypingMycological Typing TechniquesPseudomonadaceaeSeasonsSphingomonadaceaeStreptococcaceaeVitisDNA, BacterialDNA, FungalDNA, Ribosomal Spacer

Identifiers

PMID24454903
PMCPMC3894198
OpenAlexW1970152773

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.