ArticlePeerJ2020
Evaluating
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Oral Microbiome in Queensland Free-Ranging Koalas (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Unexpected Genetic Diversity of Nostocales (Cyanobacteria) Isolated from the Phyllosphere of the Laurel Forests in the Canary Islands (Spain).Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Discovery of Unusual Cyanobacterial Tryptophan-Containing Anabaenopeptins by MS/MS-Based Molecular Networking.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
resultsLeaves from
conclusionsLeaf damage by this species is likely related to the blockage of access to sunlight by the efficient growth of cyanobacterial mats on the phyllosphere, which may hinder the photosynthetic machinery and prevent access to some essential molecules. These results reveal that the presence of cyanobacteria on leaf surfaces is not as universally beneficial as previously thought, since they may not merely provide the products of nitrogen fixation to their hosts in exchange for physical support, but in some cases also hinder regular leaf physiology leading to tissue damage.
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.