Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33171782›Full record

ReviewBiology2020

The Use of Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria to Prevent Nematode Damage to Plants.

Elisa Gamalero, Bernard R Glick

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Molecular Mechanisms ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Whole genome sequence ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Volatile Organic Compounds Produced by Co-Culture ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. The role ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Microbial seed coating: An attractive tool for sustainable agriculture.Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2023
    Review
  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

2 authors.

Elisa GamaleroDipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica, Viale T. Michel 11, Università del Piemonte Orientale, 15121 Alessandria, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8273-9500
Bernard R GlickDepartment of Biology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant-parasitic nematodes have been estimated to annually cause around US $173 billion in damage to plant crops worldwide. Moreover, with global climate change, it has been suggested that the damage to crops from nematodes is likely to increase in the future. Currently, a variety of potentially dangerous and toxic chemical agents are used to limit the damage to crops by plant-parasitic nematodes. As an alternative to chemicals and a more environmentally friendly means of decreasing nematode damage to plants, researchers have begun to examine the possible use of various soil bacteria, including plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB). Here, the current literature on some of the major mechanisms employed by these soil bacteria is examined. It is expected that within the next 5-10 years, as scientists continue to elaborate the mechanisms used by these bacteria, biocontrol soil bacteria will gradually replace the use of chemicals as nematicides.

Indexed as

biocontrolplant growth-promoting bacteriaplant-parasitic nematodesplant protection

Identifiers

PMID33171782
PMCPMC7695023

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.