Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32668673›Full record

ArticleMicroorganisms2020

Methodical Considerations and Resistance Evaluation against

Akos Mesterhazy, Andrea Gyorgy, Monika Varga, Beata Toth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microorganisms, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Microorganisms · 2020
    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

4 authors.

Akos MesterhazyCereal Research Non-Profit Ltd., 6726 Szeged, Hungary.
Andrea GyorgyNAIK Department of Field Crops Research, 6726 Szeged, Hungary.
Monika VargaCereal Research Non-Profit Ltd., 6726 Szeged, Hungary.
Beata TothCereal Research Non-Profit Ltd., 6726 Szeged, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In resistance tests to Fusarium head blight (FHB), the mixing of inocula before inoculation is normal, but no information about the background of mixing was given. Therefore, four experiments (2013-2015) were made with four independent isolates, their all-possible (11) mixtures and a control. Four cultivars with differing FHB resistance were used. Disease index (DI), Fusarium damaged kernels (FDK) and deoxynivalenol (DON) were evaluated. The isolates used were not stable in aggressiveness. Their mixtures did not also give a stable aggressiveness; it depended on the composition of mix. The three traits diverged in their responses. After the mixing, the aggressiveness was always less than that of the most pathogenic component was. However, in most cases it was significantly higher than the arithmetical mean of the participating isolates. A mixture was not better than a single isolate was. The prediction of the aggressiveness level is problematic even if the aggressiveness of the components was tested. Resistance expression is different in the mixing variants and in the three traits tested. Of them, DON is the most sensitive. More reliable resistance and toxin data can be received when instead of one more independent isolates are used. This is important when highly correct data are needed (genetic research or cultivar registration).

Indexed as

deoxynivalenol (DON)disease index (DI)fusarium damaged kernels (FDK)host-pathogen relationsphenotyping FHB

Identifiers

PMID32668673
PMCPMC7409127

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.