ArticlePloS one2014
Differences in the activities of eight enzymes from ten soil fungi and their possible influences on the surface structure, functional groups, and element composition of soil colloids.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response of Rhizosphere Microenvironment of Mulberry (Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Effects of drought stress andPeerJ · 2025Article
- Regional scale diversity and distribution of soil inhabiting Tetracladium.Environmental microbiome · 2024Article
- Wood decay fungi show enhanced biodeterioration of low-density polyethylene in the absence of wood in culture media.PloS one · 2023Article
- Synthesis, Characterization and Biomedical Application of Silver Nanoparticles.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Changes in soil properties, X-ray-mineral diffractions and infrared-functional groups in bulk soil and fractions following afforestation of farmland, Northeast China.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How soil fungi function in soil carbon and nutrient cycling is not well understood by using fungal enzymatic differences and their interactions with soil colloids. Eight extracellular enzymes, EEAs (chitinase, carboxymethyl cellulase, β-glucosidase, protease, acid phosphatase, polyphenol oxidase, laccase, and guaiacol oxidase) secreted by ten fungi were compared, and then the fungi that showed low and high enzymatic activity were co-cultured with soil colloids for the purpose of finding fungi-soil interactions. Some fungi (Gomphidius rutilus, Russula integra, Pholiota adiposa, and Geastrum mammosum) secreted 3-4 enzymes with weak activities, while others (Cyathus striatus, Suillus granulate, Phallus impudicus, Collybia dryophila, Agaricus sylvicola, and Lactarius deliciosus) could secret over 5 enzymes with high activities. The differences in these fungi contributed to the alterations of functional groups (stretching bands of O-H, N-H, C-H, C = O, COO- decreased by 11-60%, while P = O, C-O stretching, O-H bending and Si-O-Si stretching increased 9-22%), surface appearance (disappearance of adhesive organic materials), and elemental compositions (11-49% decreases in C1s) in soil colloids. Moreover, more evident changes were generally in high enzymatic fungi (C. striatus) compared with low enzymatic fungi (G. rutilus). Our findings indicate that inter-fungi differences in EEA types and activities might be responsible for physical and chemical changes in soil colloids (the most active component of soil matrix), highlighting the important roles of soil fungi in soil nutrient cycling and functional maintenance.
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.