Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25628619›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2014

Fungal secondary metabolite dynamics in fungus-grazer interactions: novel insights and unanswered questions.

Marko Rohlfs

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Fungal evolution: cellular, genomic and metabolic complexity.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Applied and environmental microbiology · 2019
    Article
  20. Toxicological and Medical Aspects ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2019
    Review
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.

Marko RohlfsJohann-Friedrich-Blumenbach Institute of Zoology and Anthropology, Georg-August-University Göttingen Göttingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In response to fungivore grazing fungi are assumed to have evolved secondary metabolite-based defense mechanisms that harm and repel grazers, and hence provide a benefit to the metabolite producer. However, since research into the ecological meaning of highly diverse fungal secondary metabolites is still in its infancy, many central questions still remain. Which components of the enormous metabolite diversity of fungi act as direct chemical defense mechanisms against grazers? Is the proposed chemical defense of fungi induced by grazer attack? Which role do volatile compounds play in communicating noxiousness to grazers? What is the relative impact of grazers and that of interactions with competing microbes on the evolution of fungal secondary metabolism? Here, I briefly summarize and discuss the results of the very few studies that have tried to tackle some of these questions by (i) using secondary metabolite mutant fungi in controlled experiments with grazers, and by (ii) investigating fungal secondary metabolism as a flexible means to adapt to grazer-rich niches.

Indexed as

Aspergilluschemical defense regulationfungivoryinducible resistancesecondary metabolites

Identifiers

PMID25628619
PMCPMC4292314

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.