ArticleScientific reports2018
Hidden mycota of pine needles: Molecular signatures from PCR-DGGE and Ribosomal DNA phylogenetic characterization of novel phylotypes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phyllospheric fungal diversity in decomposing larch leaf litter: a comparative study of epiphytic and endophytic fungi.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Principal Drivers of Fungal Communities Associated with Needles, Shoots, Roots and Adjacent Soil ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Morpho-Phylo Taxonomy of Novel Dothideomycetous Fungi Associated With Dead Woody Twigs in Yunnan Province, China.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Botanical microbiomes on the cheap: Inexpensive molecular fingerprinting methods to study plant-associated communities of bacteria and fungi.Applications in plant sciences · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies for enumerating fungal communities on pine needles relied entirely on phenotypic diversity (microscopy) or identification based on DNA sequence data from those taxa recovered via cultural studies. To bypass limitations of the culturing methods and provide a more realistic diversity estimate, we employed and assessed a PCR-DGGE based method coupled with rDNA phylogenetic sequence analyses to characterize fungal taxa associated with pine needles. Fresh (living) and decayed needles from three hosts of the Pinaceae (Keteleeria fortunei, Pinus elliottii and P. massoniana) were examined. Morphological studies reveal that the most abundant species associated with decayed needles were Cladosporium cladosporioides and an unidentified Trichoderma species followed by Gliocephalotrichum sp., Gliocladium sp., Lophodermium pinastri, Paecilomyces varioti, Phaeostalagmus cyclosporus and a Phoma sp, which are commonly occurring fungi. Community genomic data from freshly collected and decayed pine needles recovered 40 operational taxonomic units, which appear to be mostly undetected members of the natural fungal consortium. Sequence analyses revealed a number of phylotypes or "species" that were not recovered using traditional morphological and cultural approaches previously used. Phylogenetic data from partial 18S rDNA sequence data reveal that most phylotypes represent potential novel phylogenetic fungal lineages with affinities to the Dothideomycetes, Leotiomycetes, Lecanoromycetes and Sordariomycetes and were not identical to previously known endophytes or saprobes. Although the major ecological roles of these phylotypes in pine needles are still enigmatic, this study provides new insights in hidden fungal diversity that mycologists are possibly ignoring given the discrepancies associated with available methods. To what extent do previously recovered identified species (either as saprobes or endophytes) from morphological or culturing studies act as pioneer decomposers or constitute an integral part of endophytic community warrants further investigation.
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.