Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31781054›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2019

Microbiome Response to Hot Water Treatment and Potential Synergy With Biological Control on Stored Apples.

Birgit Wassermann, Peter Kusstatscher, Gabriele Berg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Frontiers in plant science · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Birgit WassermannGraz University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Biotechnology, Graz, Austria.
Peter KusstatscherGraz University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Biotechnology, Graz, Austria.
Gabriele BergGraz University of Technology, Institute of Environmental Biotechnology, Graz, Austria.
Graz University of Technology · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Postharvest food decay is one major issue for today's food loss along the supply chain. Hot water treatment (HWT), a sustainable method to reduce pathogen-induced postharvest fruit decay, has been proven to be effective on a variety of crops. However, the microbiome response to HWT is still unknown, and the role of postharvest microbiota for fruit quality is largely unexplored. To study both, we applied a combined approach of metabarcoding analysis and real time qPCR for microbiome tracking. Overall, HWT was highly effective in reducing rot symptoms on apples under commercial conditions, and induced only slight changes to the fungal microbiota, and insignificantly affected the bacterial community. Pathogen infection, however, significantly decreased the bacterial and fungal diversity, and especially rare taxa were almost eradicated in diseased apples. Here, about 90% of the total fungal community was composed by co-occurring storage pathogens

Indexed as

biological control consortiumblue moldbull’s eye rotMalus domesticamicrobiotaNeofabraea sp.Penicillium expansumpostharvest losses

Identifiers

PMID31781054
PMCPMC6852696
OpenAlexW2984241771

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.