ReviewAIMS microbiology2017
Taxonomy and systematics of plant probiotic bacteria in the genomic era.
Review in AIMS microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspective on utilization ofAIMS microbiology · 2024Review
- 'A plant's major strength in rhizosphere': the plant growth promoting rhizobacteria.Archives of microbiology · 2023Review
- Microbials for Agriculture: Why Do They Call Them Biostimulants When They Mean Probiotics?Microorganisms · 2023Review
- Synergistic impact of nanomaterials and plant probiotics in agriculture: A tale of two-way strategy for long-term sustainability.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Article
- Polyene Macrolactams from Marine and Terrestrial Sources: Structure, Production Strategies, Biosynthesis and Bioactivities.Marine drugs · 2022Review
- One Health Probiotics as Biocontrol Agents: One Health Tomato Probiotics.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Exploitation of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria for Sustainable Agriculture: Hierarchical Approach to Link Laboratory and Field Experiments.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Genome insights into the pharmaceutical and plant growth promoting features of the novel species Nocardia alni sp. nov.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- Draft Genome Sequence ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2019Article
- Genomic Insights Into Plant-Growth-Promoting Potentialities of the GenusFrontiers in microbiology · 2019Article
- Genome-based classification of micromonosporae with a focus on their biotechnological and ecological potential.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent decades have predicted significant changes within our concept of plant endophytes, from only a small number specific microorganisms being able to colonize plant tissues, to whole communities that live and interact with their hosts and each other. Many of these microorganisms are responsible for health status of the plant, and have become known in recent years as plant probiotics. Contrary to human probiotics, they belong to many different phyla and have usually had each genus analysed independently, which has resulted in lack of a complete taxonomic analysis as a group. This review scrutinizes the plant probiotic concept, and the taxonomic status of plant probiotic bacteria, based on both traditional and more recent approaches. Phylogenomic studies and genes with implications in plant-beneficial effects are discussed. This report covers some representative probiotic bacteria of the phylum
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.