Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25821453›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2015

Chemical diversity of microbial volatiles and their potential for plant growth and productivity.

Chidananda Nagamangala Kanchiswamy, Mickael Malnoy, Massimo E Maffei

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 158 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
158citing papers in PubMed
51.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

158 citing papers in PubMed, 478 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Influence ofMicroorganisms · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

98 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chidananda Nagamangala KanchiswamyResearch and Innovation Center, Biology and Genomic of Fruit Plants, Fondazione Edmund Mach Trento, Italy.
Mickael MalnoyResearch and Innovation Center, Biology and Genomic of Fruit Plants, Fondazione Edmund Mach Trento, Italy.
Massimo E MaffeiPlant Physiology Unit, Department of Life Sciences and Systems Biology, University of Turin Turin, Italy.
University of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbial volatile organic compounds (MVOCs) are produced by a wide array of microorganisms ranging from bacteria to fungi. A growing body of evidence indicates that MVOCs are ecofriendly and can be exploited as a cost-effective sustainable strategy for use in agricultural practice as agents that enhance plant growth, productivity, and disease resistance. As naturally occurring chemicals, MVOCs have potential as possible alternatives to harmful pesticides, fungicides, and bactericides as well as genetic modification. Recent studies performed under open field conditions demonstrate that efficiently adopting MVOCs may contribute to sustainable crop protection and production. We review here the chemical diversity of MVOCs by describing microbial-plants and microbial-microbial interactions. Furthermore, we discuss MVOCs role in inducing phenotypic plant responses and their potential physiological effects on crops. Finally, we analyze potential and actual limitations for MVOC use and deployment in field conditions as a sustainable strategy for improving productivity and reducing pesticide use.

Indexed as

bacteriafungimicrobial volatile compoundsplant productivitysustainable agriculture

Identifiers

PMID25821453
PMCPMC4358370
OpenAlexW2028788652

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.