Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24863894›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in biotechnology2014

Metabolic potential of endophytic bacteria.

Günter Brader, Stéphane Compant, Birgit Mitter, Friederike Trognitz, Angela Sessitsch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in biotechnology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 180 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
180citing 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

180 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Genomic signatures inmSystems · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

120 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

5 authors.

Günter BraderAIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Bioresources Unit, Konrad-Lorenz-Strasse 24, 3430 Tulln, Austria.
Stéphane CompantAIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Bioresources Unit, Konrad-Lorenz-Strasse 24, 3430 Tulln, Austria.
Birgit MitterAIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Bioresources Unit, Konrad-Lorenz-Strasse 24, 3430 Tulln, Austria.
Friederike TrognitzAIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Bioresources Unit, Konrad-Lorenz-Strasse 24, 3430 Tulln, Austria.
Angela SessitschAIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Bioresources Unit, Konrad-Lorenz-Strasse 24, 3430 Tulln, Austria. Electronic address: angela.sessitsch@ait.ac.at.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF L 561Austrian Science Fund FWF P 24569
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The bacterial endophytic microbiome promotes plant growth and health and beneficial effects are in many cases mediated and characterized by metabolic interactions. Recent advances have been made in regard to metabolite production by plant microsymbionts showing that they may produce a range of different types of metabolites. These substances play a role in defense and competition, but may also be needed for specific interaction and communication with the plant host. Furthermore, few examples of bilateral metabolite production are known and endophytes may modulate plant metabolite synthesis as well. We have just started to understand such metabolic interactions between plants and endophytes, however, further research is needed to more efficiently make use of beneficial plant-microbe interactions and to reduce pathogen infestation as well as to reveal novel bioactive substances of commercial interest.

Indexed as

BacteriaPlant DevelopmentPlantsSecondary MetabolismSymbiosis

Identifiers

PMID24863894
PMCPMC4045207

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.