Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30967154›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2019

Phyllosphere epiphytic and endophytic fungal community and network structures differ in a tropical mangrove ecosystem.

Hui Yao, Xiang Sun, Chao He, Pulak Maitra, Xing-Chun Li, Liang-Dong Guo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing 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

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

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

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

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.

Hui YaoState Key Laboratory of Mycology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, People's Republic of China.
Xiang SunState Key Laboratory of Mycology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, People's Republic of China.
Chao HeInstitute of Medicinal Plant Development, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China.
Pulak MaitraState Key Laboratory of Mycology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, People's Republic of China.
Xing-Chun LiState Key Laboratory of Mycology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, People's Republic of China.
Liang-Dong GuoState Key Laboratory of Mycology, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, People's Republic of China. guold@im.ac.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-5203-3192

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRevealing the relationship between plants and fungi is very important in understanding biodiversity maintenance, community stability, and ecosystem functioning. However, differences in the community and network structures of phyllosphere epiphytic and endophytic fungi are currently poorly documented. In this study, we examined epiphytic and endophytic fungal communities associated with the leaves of six mangrove species using Illumina MiSeq sequencing of internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2) sequences.

resultsA total of 635 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) of endophytic and epiphytic fungi were obtained at a 97% sequence similarity level; they were dominated by Dothideomycetes and Tremellomycetes. Plant identity had a significant effect on the OTU richness of endophytic fungi, but not on epiphytic fungi. The community composition of epiphytic and endophytic fungi was significantly different, and plant identity had a greater effect on endophytic fungi than on epiphytic fungi. Network analysis showed that both epiphytic and endophytic network structures were characterized by significantly highly specialized and modular but lowly connected and anti-nested properties. Furthermore, the endophytic network had higher levels of specialization and modularity but lower connectance and stronger anti-nestedness than the epiphytic network.

conclusionsThis study reveals that the phyllosphere epiphytic and endophytic fungal communities differ, and plant identity has a greater effect on the endophytic fungi than on epiphytic fungi. These findings demonstrate the role of host plant identity in driving phyllosphere epiphytic and endophytic community structure.

Indexed as

BiodiversityEndophytesFungiHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPhylogenyPlantsSequence Analysis, DNAWetlandsEndophytic fungiEpiphytic fungiIllumina MiSeq sequencingITS2MangrovesNetwork structure

Identifiers

PMID30967154
PMCPMC6456958

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.