ArticlePloS one2016
New Pseudomonas spp. Are Pathogenic to Citrus.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genome-Based Taxonomy of Species in theMicroorganisms · 2024Article
- Development of a real-time loop-mediated isothermal amplification method for monitoringFrontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Pseudomonas viridiflava: An internal outsider of the Pseudomonas syringae species complex.Molecular plant pathology · 2022Article
- Phylogenetic analysis of the bacterial Pro-Pro-endopeptidase domain reveals a diverse family including secreted and membrane anchored proteins.Current research in microbial sciences · 2021Review
- Diversity of pathogenic Pseudomonas isolated from citrus in Tunisia.AMB Express · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Uncommonly isolated clinical Pseudomonas: identification and phylogenetic assignation.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017Article
- Frontiers for research on the ecology of plant-pathogenic bacteria: fundamentals for sustainability: Challenges in Bacterial Molecular Plant Pathology.Molecular plant pathology · 2017Review
- Clarification of Taxonomic Status within theFrontiers in microbiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Five putative novel Pseudomonas species shown to be pathogenic to citrus have been characterized in a screening of 126 Pseudomonas strains isolated from diseased citrus leaves and stems in northern Iran. The 126 strains were studied using a polyphasic approach that included phenotypic characterizations and phylogenetic multilocus sequence analysis. The pathogenicity of these strains against 3 cultivars of citrus is demonstrated in greenhouse and field studies. The strains were initially grouped phenotypically and by their partial rpoD gene sequences into 11 coherent groups in the Pseudomonas fluorescens phylogenetic lineage. Fifty-three strains that are representatives of the 11 groups were selected and analyzed by partial sequencing of their 16S rRNA and gyrB genes. The individual and concatenated partial sequences of the three genes were used to construct the corresponding phylogenetic trees. The majority of the strains were identified at the species level: P. lurida (5 strains), P. monteilii (2 strains), P. moraviensis (1 strain), P. orientalis (16 strains), P. simiae (7 strains), P. syringae (46 strains, distributed phylogenetically in at least 5 pathovars), and P. viridiflava (2 strains). This is the first report of pathogenicity on citrus of P. orientalis, P. simiae, P. lurida, P. moraviensis and P. monteilii strains. The remaining 47 strains that could not be identified at the species level are considered representatives of at least 5 putative novel Pseudomonas species that are not yet described.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.