Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26779150›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2015

Microbial Small Talk: Volatiles in Fungal-Bacterial Interactions.

Ruth Schmidt, Desalegn W Etalo, Victor de Jager, Saskia Gerards, Hans Zweers, Wietse de Boer, Paolina Garbeva

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 73 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed
12.1field-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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 181 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Hijacking competitor-derived signals: RcsB/C drivesApplied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Influence ofMicroorganisms · 2025
    Article
  9. Mechanism ofApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ruth SchmidtDepartment of Microbial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology Wageningen, Netherlands.
Desalegn W EtaloDepartment of Microbial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology Wageningen, Netherlands.
Victor de JagerDepartment of Microbial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology Wageningen, Netherlands.
Saskia GerardsDepartment of Microbial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology Wageningen, Netherlands.
Hans ZweersDepartment of Microbial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology Wageningen, Netherlands.
Wietse de BoerDepartment of Microbial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of EcologyWageningen, Netherlands; Department of Soil Quality, Wageningen UniversityWageningen, Netherlands.
Paolina GarbevaDepartment of Microbial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology Wageningen, Netherlands.
Netherlands Institute of Ecology · NLWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is increasing evidence that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) play an important role in the interactions between fungi and bacteria, two major groups of soil inhabiting microorganisms. Yet, most of the research has been focused on effects of bacterial volatiles on suppression of plant pathogenic fungi whereas little is known about the responses of bacteria to fungal volatiles. In the current study we performed a metabolomics analysis of volatiles emitted by several fungal and oomycetal soil strains under different nutrient conditions and growth stages. The metabolomics analysis of the tested fungal and oomycetal strains revealed different volatile profiles dependent on the age of the strains and nutrient conditions. Furthermore, we screened the phenotypic responses of soil bacterial strains to volatiles emitted by fungi. Two bacteria, Collimonas pratensis Ter291 and Serratia plymuthica PRI-2C, showed significant changes in their motility, in particular to volatiles emitted by Fusarium culmorum. This fungus produced a unique volatile blend, including several terpenes. Four of these terpenes were selected for further tests to investigate if they influence bacterial motility. Indeed, these terpenes induced or reduced swimming and swarming motility of S. plymuthica PRI-2C and swarming motility of C. pratensis Ter291, partly in a concentration-dependent manner. Overall the results of this work revealed that bacteria are able to sense and respond to fungal volatiles giving further evidence to the suggested importance of volatiles as signaling molecules in fungal-bacterial interactions.

Indexed as

fungal–bacterial interactionsmotilitysignalingsoil microorganismsterpenesvolatiles

Identifiers

PMID26779150
PMCPMC4700264
OpenAlexW2192639451

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.