Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26635749›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2015

Comparative Analysis of Secretomes from Ectomycorrhizal Fungi with an Emphasis on Small-Secreted Proteins.

Clement Pellegrin, Emmanuelle Morin, Francis M Martin, Claire Veneault-Fourrey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed
16.6field-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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 141 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Microbiology spectrum · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Altered Expression of Two Small Secreted Proteins (International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Clement PellegrinUMR 1136 Interactions Arbres/Microorganismes, Université de Lorraine Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France ; UMR 1136 Interactions Arbres/Microorganismes, Laboratoire d'Excellence ARBRE, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, INRA-Nancy Champenoux, France.
Emmanuelle MorinUMR 1136 Interactions Arbres/Microorganismes, Laboratoire d'Excellence ARBRE, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, INRA-Nancy Champenoux, France.
Francis M MartinUMR 1136 Interactions Arbres/Microorganismes, Laboratoire d'Excellence ARBRE, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, INRA-Nancy Champenoux, France.
Claire Veneault-FourreyUMR 1136 Interactions Arbres/Microorganismes, Université de Lorraine Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France ; UMR 1136 Interactions Arbres/Microorganismes, Laboratoire d'Excellence ARBRE, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, INRA-Nancy Champenoux, France.
Interactions Arbres-Microorganismes · FRUniversité de Lorraine · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fungi are major players in the carbon cycle in forest ecosystems due to the wide range of interactions they have with plants either through soil degradation processes by litter decayers or biotrophic interactions with pathogenic and ectomycorrhizal symbionts. Secretion of fungal proteins mediates these interactions by allowing the fungus to interact with its environment and/or host. Ectomycorrhizal (ECM) symbiosis independently appeared several times throughout evolution and involves approximately 80% of trees. Despite extensive physiological studies on ECM symbionts, little is known about the composition and specificities of their secretomes. In this study, we used a bioinformatics pipeline to predict and analyze the secretomes of 49 fungal species, including 11 ECM fungi, wood and soil decayers and pathogenic fungi to tackle the following questions: (1) Are there differences between the secretomes of saprophytic and ECM fungi? (2) Are small-secreted proteins (SSPs) more abundant in biotrophic fungi than in saprophytic fungi? and (3) Are there SSPs shared between ECM, saprotrophic and pathogenic fungi? We showed that the number of predicted secreted proteins is similar in the surveyed species, independently of their lifestyle. The secretome from ECM fungi is characterized by a restricted number of secreted CAZymes, but their repertoires of secreted proteases and lipases are similar to those of saprotrophic fungi. Focusing on SSPs, we showed that the secretome of ECM fungi is enriched in SSPs compared with other species. Most of the SSPs are coded by orphan genes with no known PFAM domain or similarities to known sequences in databases. Finally, based on the clustering analysis, we identified shared- and lifestyle-specific SSPs between saprotrophic and ECM fungi. The presence of SSPs is not limited to fungi interacting with living plants as the genome of saprotrophic fungi also code for numerous SSPs. ECM fungi shared lifestyle-specific SSPs likely involved in symbiosis that are good candidates for further functional analyses.

Indexed as

ectomycorrhizalsaprotrophssecretomessecretomicssmall-secreted proteinssymbiosis

Identifiers

PMID26635749
PMCPMC4649063
OpenAlexW2177790439

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.