Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25862569›Full record

ReviewMycorrhiza2015

Using mycorrhiza-defective mutant genotypes of non-legume plant species to study the formation and functioning of arbuscular mycorrhiza: a review.

Stephanie J Watts-Williams, Timothy R Cavagnaro

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Mycorrhiza, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Re-engineering a lost trait:bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Chinese Black Truffle (Frontiers in microbiology · 2018
    Article
  8. 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

2 authors.

Stephanie J Watts-WilliamsSchool of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3800, Australia. sjw266@cornell.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7359-8440
Timothy R CavagnaroSchool of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide, Waite Campus, PMB1, Glen Osmond, SA, 5064, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A significant challenge facing the study of arbuscular mycorrhiza is the establishment of suitable non-mycorrhizal treatments that can be compared with mycorrhizal treatments. A number of options are available, including soil disinfection or sterilisation, comparison of constitutively mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal plant species, comparison of plants grown in soils with different inoculum potential and the comparison of mycorrhiza-defective mutant genotypes with their mycorrhizal wild-type progenitors. Each option has its inherent advantages and limitations. Here, the potential to use mycorrhiza-defective mutant and wild-type genotype plant pairs as tools to study the functioning of mycorrhiza is reviewed. The emphasis of this review is placed on non-legume plant species, as mycorrhiza-defective plant genotypes in legumes have recently been extensively reviewed. It is concluded that non-legume mycorrhiza-defective mutant and wild-type pairs are useful tools in the study of mycorrhiza. However, the mutant genotypes should be well characterised and, ideally, meet a number of key criteria. The generation of more mycorrhiza-defective mutant genotypes in agronomically important plant species would be of benefit, as would be more research using these genotype pairs, especially under field conditions.

Indexed as

FabaceaeGenotypeMutationMycorrhizaePlant RootsPlantsSoilSolanum lycopersicumSoilArbuscular mycorrhizaMicro-TomMycorrhiza-defective mutant genotypeReduced mycorrhizal colonisation (rmc)Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)

Identifiers

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.