Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31002383›Full record

SynthesisThe New phytologist2019

Meta-analysis of the role of entomopathogenic and unspecialized fungal endophytes as plant bodyguards.

Alan C Gange, Julia Koricheva, Amanda F Currie, Lara R Jaber, Stefan Vidal

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The New phytologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed
12.5field-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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 138 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Effects ofInsects · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. The PKS-NRPS GeneJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Can fungal endophytes suppressFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. EndophyticJournal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2023
    Article
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Alan C GangeSchool of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9918-1934
Julia KorichevaSchool of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9033-0171
Amanda F CurrieSchool of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK.
Lara R JaberDepartment of Plant Protection, School of Agriculture, The University of Jordan, Amman, 11942, Jordan.ORCID 0000-0003-0483-2886
Stefan VidalDepartment of Crop Protection, Agricultural Entomology, Georg-August University Goettingen, Grisebachstrasse 6, Goettingen, 37077, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1673-4055
Royal Holloway University of London · GBUniversity of Göttingen · DEUniversity of Jordan · JO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Herbaceous plants harbour species-rich communities of asymptomatic endophytic fungi. Although some of these endophytes are entomopathogenic, many are not, and remarkably little is known about how the presence of these fungi in plant tissues affects phytophagous insects. Here we show through a meta-analysis that both entomopathogenic and nonentomopathogenic endophytes have a negative effect on insect herbivores. Growth and performance of polyphagous and sucking insects are reduced by nonentomopathogenic endophytes, but monophages are unaffected, likely because the latter are better adapted to secondary metabolites produced or induced by the fungi. Furthermore, studies using excised leaves report weaker effects than those with intact plants, likely caused by chemical changes being masked by leaf excision. Most surprisingly, endophyte infection of seeds produces the greatest effect on insect herbivores in subsequent mature plants, even though the usual mode of fungal transmission is infection of leaves by airborne spores. We conclude that these ubiquitous hidden fungi may be important bodyguards of plants. However, in order to fully understand their roles in plant protection, we must be aware that minor differences in experimental design can lead to contradictory results.

Indexed as

AnimalsEndophytesFeeding BehaviorInsectaPlant LeavesPlantsPupadefenceeffect sizeentomopathogeninoculationinsect herbivoreseedssystemic growth

Identifiers

PMID31002383
PMCPMC6766880
OpenAlexW2938590433

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.