Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24904612›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2014

Analysis of plant microbe interactions in the era of next generation sequencing technologies.

Claudia Knief

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

85 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. The biocontrol agentFrontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cutting edge tools in the field of soil microbiology.Current research in microbial sciences · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

25 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

1 author.

Claudia KniefInstitute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation-Molecular Biology of the Rhizosphere, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Bonn Bonn, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have impressively accelerated research in biological science during the last years by enabling the production of large volumes of sequence data to a drastically lower price per base, compared to traditional sequencing methods. The recent and ongoing developments in the field allow addressing research questions in plant-microbe biology that were not conceivable just a few years ago. The present review provides an overview of NGS technologies and their usefulness for the analysis of microorganisms that live in association with plants. Possible limitations of the different sequencing systems, in particular sources of errors and bias, are critically discussed and methods are disclosed that help to overcome these shortcomings. A focus will be on the application of NGS methods in metagenomic studies, including the analysis of microbial communities by amplicon sequencing, which can be considered as a targeted metagenomic approach. Different applications of NGS technologies are exemplified by selected research articles that address the biology of the plant associated microbiota to demonstrate the worth of the new methods.

Indexed as

amplicon sequencingmetagenomicsnext generation sequencingphyllosphereplant microbiotarhizosphere

Identifiers

PMID24904612
PMCPMC4033234

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.