Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27917161›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2016

The Interaction between Plants and Bacteria in the Remediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons: An Environmental Perspective.

Panagiotis Gkorezis, Matteo Daghio, Andrea Franzetti, Jonathan D Van Hamme, Wouter Sillen, Jaco Vangronsveld

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Draft Genome ofMicroorganisms · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Panagiotis GkorezisEnvironmental Biology, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Matteo DaghioDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Milano-BicoccaMilano, Italy; Department of Biological Sciences, Thompson Rivers University, KamloopsBC, Canada.
Andrea FranzettiDepartment of Environmental Sciences, University of Milano-Bicocca Milano, Italy.
Jonathan D Van HammeDepartment of Biological Sciences, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops BC, Canada.
Wouter SillenEnvironmental Biology, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University Diepenbeek, Belgium.
Jaco VangronsveldEnvironmental Biology, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University Diepenbeek, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Widespread pollution of terrestrial ecosystems with petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) has generated a need for remediation and, given that many PHCs are biodegradable, bio- and phyto-remediation are often viable approaches for active and passive remediation. This review focuses on phytoremediation with particular interest on the interactions between and use of plant-associated bacteria to restore PHC polluted sites. Plant-associated bacteria include endophytic, phyllospheric, and rhizospheric bacteria, and cooperation between these bacteria and their host plants allows for greater plant survivability and treatment outcomes in contaminated sites. Bacterially driven PHC bioremediation is attributed to the presence of diverse suites of metabolic genes for aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, along with a broader suite of physiological properties including biosurfactant production, biofilm formation, chemotaxis to hydrocarbons, and flexibility in cell-surface hydrophobicity. In soils impacted by PHC contamination, microbial bioremediation generally relies on the addition of high-energy electron acceptors (e.g., oxygen) and fertilization to supply limiting nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium) in the face of excess PHC carbon. As an alternative, the addition of plants can greatly improve bioremediation rates and outcomes as plants provide microbial habitats, improve soil porosity (thereby increasing mass transfer of substrates and electron acceptors), and exchange limiting nutrients with their microbial counterparts. In return, plant-associated microorganisms improve plant growth by reducing soil toxicity through contaminant removal, producing plant growth promoting metabolites, liberating sequestered plant nutrients from soil, fixing nitrogen, and more generally establishing the foundations of soil nutrient cycling. In a practical and applied sense, the collective action of plants and their associated microorganisms is advantageous for remediation of PHC contaminated soil in terms of overall cost and success rates for

Indexed as

bioremediationpetroleum hydrocarbonsphytoremediationplant–bacteria assisted remediationremediation

Identifiers

PMID27917161
PMCPMC5116465

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.