Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24600444›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2014

Effects of bacterial inoculants on the indigenous microbiome and secondary metabolites of chamomile plants.

Ruth Schmidt, Martina Köberl, Amr Mostafa, Elshahat M Ramadan, Marlene Monschein, Kenneth B Jensen, Rudolf Bauer, Gabriele Berg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 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
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 147 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. HarnessingFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ruth SchmidtInstitute for Environmental Biotechnology, Graz University of Technology Graz, Austria.
Martina KöberlInstitute for Environmental Biotechnology, Graz University of Technology Graz, Austria.
Amr MostafaFaculty of Agriculture, SEKEM, Heliopolis University, Ain Shams University Cairo, Egypt.
Elshahat M RamadanFaculty of Agriculture, SEKEM, Heliopolis University, Ain Shams University Cairo, Egypt.
Marlene MonscheinDepartment of Pharmacognosy, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Graz Graz, Austria.
Kenneth B JensenInstitute of Chemistry, University of Graz Graz, Austria.
Rudolf BauerDepartment of Pharmacognosy, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Graz Graz, Austria.
Gabriele BergInstitute for Environmental Biotechnology, Graz University of Technology Graz, Austria.
Graz University of Technology · ATUniversity of Graz · ATAin Shams University · EGHeliopolis University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant-associated bacteria fulfill important functions for plant growth and health. However, our knowledge about the impact of bacterial treatments on the host's microbiome and physiology is limited. The present study was conducted to assess the impact of bacterial inoculants on the microbiome of chamomile plants Chamomilla recutita (L.) Rauschert grown in a field under organic management in Egypt. Chamomile seedlings were inoculated with three indigenous Gram-positive strains (Streptomyces subrutilus Wbn2-11, Bacillus subtilis Co1-6, Paenibacillus polymyxa Mc5Re-14) from Egypt and three European Gram-negative strains (Pseudomonas fluorescens L13-6-12, Stenotrophomonas rhizophila P69, Serratia plymuthica 3Re4-18) already known for their beneficial plant-microbe interaction. Molecular fingerprints of 16S rRNA gene as well as real-time PCR analyses did not show statistically significant differences for all applied bacterial antagonists compared to the control. In contrast, a pyrosequencing analysis of the 16S rRNA gene libraries revealed significant differences in the community structure of bacteria between the treatments. These differences could be clearly shown by a shift within the community structure and corresponding beta-diversity indices. Moreover, B. subtilis Co1-6 and P. polymyxa Mc5Re-14 showed an enhancement of the bioactive secondary metabolite apigenin-7-O-glucoside. This indicates a possible new function of bacterial inoculants: to interact with the plant microbiome as well as to influence the plant metabolome.

Indexed as

bioactive secondary metabolitesbiological control agentschamomilemicrobial communitiessoil-borne pathogens

Identifiers

PMID24600444
PMCPMC3928675
OpenAlexW2169978950

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.