Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24948927›Full record

ArticleBrazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]2014

A primary assessment of the endophytic bacterial community in a xerophilous moss (Grimmia montana) using molecular method and cultivated isolates.

Xiao Lei Liu, Su Lin Liu, Min Liu, Bi He Kong, Lei Liu, Yan Hong Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology], 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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.

Xiao Lei LiuCollege of Life Science Capital Normal University Haidian DistrictBeijing China.
Su Lin LiuCollege of Life Science Capital Normal University Haidian DistrictBeijing China.
Min LiuCollege of Life Science Capital Normal University Haidian DistrictBeijing China.
Bi He KongCollege of Life Science Capital Normal University Haidian DistrictBeijing China.
Lei LiuCollege of Life Science Capital Normal University Haidian DistrictBeijing China.
Yan Hong LiCollege of Life Science Capital Normal University Haidian DistrictBeijing China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Investigating the endophytic bacterial community in special moss species is fundamental to understanding the microbial-plant interactions and discovering the bacteria with stresses tolerance. Thus, the community structure of endophytic bacteria in the xerophilous moss Grimmia montana were estimated using a 16S rDNA library and traditional cultivation methods. In total, 212 sequences derived from the 16S rDNA library were used to assess the bacterial diversity. Sequence alignment showed that the endophytes were assigned to 54 genera in 4 phyla (Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Cytophaga/Flexibacter/Bacteroids). Of them, the dominant phyla were Proteobacteria (45.9%) and Firmicutes (27.6%), the most abundant genera included Acinetobacter, Aeromonas, Enterobacter, Leclercia, Microvirga, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Planococcus, Paenisporosarcina and Planomicrobium. In addition, a total of 14 species belonging to 8 genera in 3 phyla (Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria) were isolated, Curtobacterium, Massilia, Pseudomonas and Sphingomonas were the dominant genera. Although some of the genera isolated were inconsistent with those detected by molecular method, both of two methods proved that many different endophytic bacteria coexist in G. montana. According to the potential functional analyses of these bacteria, some species are known to have possible beneficial effects on hosts, but whether this is the case in G. montana needs to be confirmed.

Indexed as

BiotaBacteriaBryopsidaDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalEndophytesMolecular Sequence DataRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNADNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 16Sbacterial diversitycultivated isolatesendophytesmolecular methodmoss

Identifiers

PMID24948927
PMCPMC4059291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.