ArticleBMC genomics2014
Genomic basis of symbiovar mimosae in Rhizobium etli.
Article in BMC genomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guidelines for the description of rhizobial symbiovars.International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2024Guideline
- Genomic Data ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2021Article
- Plant transcriptome analysis reveals specific molecular interactions between alfalfa and its rhizobial symbionts below the species level.BMC plant biology · 2020Article
- Formulation of a Highly Effective Inoculant for Common Bean Based on an Autochthonous Elite Strain ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2019Article
- PhylogenomicFrontiers in microbiology · 2019Article
- A Novel Strategy for Detecting Recent Horizontal Gene Transfer and Its Application toFrontiers in microbiology · 2018Article
- Complete Genome Sequence of a Novel NonnodulatingGenome announcements · 2017Article
- Novel Cupriavidus Strains Isolated from Root Nodules of Native Uruguayan Mimosa Species.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSymbiosis genes (nod and nif) involved in nodulation and nitrogen fixation in legumes are plasmid-borne in Rhizobium. Rhizobial symbiotic variants (symbiovars) with distinct host specificity would depend on the type of symbiosis plasmid. In Rhizobium etli or in Rhizobium phaseoli, symbiovar phaseoli strains have the capacity to form nodules in Phaseolus vulgaris while symbiovar mimosae confers a broad host range including different mimosa trees.
resultsWe report on the genome of R. etli symbiovar mimosae strain Mim1 and its comparison to that from R. etli symbiovar phaseoli strain CFN42. Differences were found in plasmids especially in the symbiosis plasmid, not only in nod gene sequences but in nod gene content. Differences in Nod factors deduced from the presence of nod genes, in secretion systems or ACC-deaminase could help explain the distinct host specificity. Genes involved in P. vulgaris exudate uptake were not found in symbiovar mimosae but hup genes (involved in hydrogen uptake) were found. Plasmid pRetCFN42a was partially contained in Mim1 and a plasmid (pRetMim1c) was found only in Mim1. Chromids were well conserved.
conclusionsThe genomic differences between the two symbiovars, mimosae and phaseoli may explain different host specificity. With the genomic analysis presented, the term symbiovar is validated. Furthermore, our data support that the generalist symbiovar mimosae may be older than the specialist symbiovar phaseoli.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.