ArticlePeerJ2020
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus as a plant growth-promoting endophyte: mechanistic insights and translational prospects for sustainable agriculture.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Fine-Tuning ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Individual competence predominates over host nutritional status in Arabidopsis root exudate-mediated bacterial enrichment in a combination of four Burkholderiaceae species.BMC microbiology · 2022Article
- Fungi-Bacteria Associations in Wilt Diseased Rhizosphere and Endosphere by Interdomain Ecological Network Analysis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlants interact with a variety of microorganisms during their life cycle, among which beneficial bacteria deserve special attention.
methodsWe analyzed the response of
resultsOur results revealed the induction of bacterial growth in response to cocultivation. Comparative proteomic analysis identified 450 bacterial proteins, with 39 up-accumulated, and 12 down-accumulated in response to cocultivation. Among the up-accumulated pathways, the metabolism of pentoses and protein synthesis were highlighted. Proteins potentially relevant to bacterial growth response such as ABC-F-Etta, ClpX, Zwf, MetE, AcnA, IlvC, and AccC were also increased. Reverse genetics analysis, using insertion mutants, revealed that the lack of ABC-F-Etta and AccC proteins severely affects
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.