Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31703074›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Bacterial communities in the rhizosphere, phyllosphere and endosphere of tomato plants.

Chun-Juan Dong, Ling-Ling Wang, Qian Li, Qing-Mao Shang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed
32.3field-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

103 citing papers in PubMed, 270 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. mSphere · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Drought stress inFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

43 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chun-Juan DongInstitute of Vegetables and Flowers, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Key Laboratory of Horticultural Crop Biology and Germplasm Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, P.R. China.ORCID 0000-0002-8740-6649
Ling-Ling WangInstitute of Vegetables and Flowers, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Key Laboratory of Horticultural Crop Biology and Germplasm Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, P.R. China.
Qian LiInstitute of Vegetables and Flowers, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Key Laboratory of Horticultural Crop Biology and Germplasm Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, P.R. China.
Qing-Mao ShangInstitute of Vegetables and Flowers, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Key Laboratory of Horticultural Crop Biology and Germplasm Innovation, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, P.R. China.
Institute of Vegetables and Flowers · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants harbor diverse bacterial communities, which play crucial roles in plant health and growth, in their rhizosphere, phyllosphere and endosphere. Tomato is an important model for studying plant-microbe interactions, but comparison of its associated bacterial community is still lacking. In this study, using Illumina sequencing of 16S rRNA amplicons, we characterized and compared the bacterial size and community from rootzone soil as well as the rhizosphere, phyllosphere and endosphere of roots, stems, leaves, fruits and seeds of tomato plants that were grown in greenhouse conditions. Habitat (soil, phyllospheric, and endophytic) structured the community. The bacterial communities from the soil-type samples (rootzone soil and rhizosphere) showed the highest richness and diversity. The lowest bacterial diversity occurred in the phyllospheric samples, while the lowest richness occurred in the endosphere. Among the endophytic samples, both bacterial diversity and richness varied in different tissues, with the highest values in roots. The most abundant phyla in the tomato-associated community was Proteobacteria, with the exception of the seeds and jelly, where both Proteobacteria and Firmicutes were dominant. At the genus level, the sequences of Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter were prevalent in the rhizosphere, and in the phyllosphere, more than 97% of the sequences were assigned to Acinetobacter. For the endophytes, Acinetobacter, Enterobacter, and Pseudomonas were the abundant genera in the roots, stems and leaves. In the fruits, the bacterial endophytes varied in different compartments, with Enterobacter being enriched in the pericarp and seeds, Acinetobacter in the placenta, and Weissella in the jelly. The present data provide a comprehensive description of the tomato-associated bacterial community and will be useful for better understanding plant-microbe interactions and selecting suitable bacterial taxa for tomato production.

Indexed as

Bacterial Physiological PhenomenaRhizosphereBacteriaBiodiversityEndophytesRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSolanum lycopersicumRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID31703074
PMCPMC6839845
OpenAlexW2985999327

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.