Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33427195›Full record

ArticleeLife2021

A fungal member of the

Katharina Eitzen, Priyamedha Sengupta, Samuel Kroll, Eric Kemen, Gunther Doehlemann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. GH25 lysozyme mediates tripartite interkingdom interactions and microbial competition on the plant leaf surface.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. High-quality genome resource of a basidiomycetous yeast,Microbiology resource announcements · 2024
    Article
  13. Phyllosphere Microbiome in Plant Health and Disease.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

5 authors.

Katharina EitzenInstitute for Plant Sciences and Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences (CEPLAS), University of Cologne, Center for Molecular Biosciences, Cologne, Germany.
Priyamedha SenguptaInstitute for Plant Sciences and Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences (CEPLAS), University of Cologne, Center for Molecular Biosciences, Cologne, Germany.
Samuel KrollMax Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany.
Eric KemenMax Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Cologne, Germany.
Gunther DoehlemannInstitute for Plant Sciences and Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences (CEPLAS), University of Cologne, Center for Molecular Biosciences, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7353-8456

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants are not only challenged by pathogenic organisms but also colonized by commensal microbes. The network of interactions these microbes establish with their host and among each other is suggested to contribute to the immune responses of plants against pathogens. In wild

Indexed as

MycobiomeArabidopsisBasidiomycotaFungal ProteinsMuramidaseOomycetesPlant DiseasesFungal ProteinsMuramidasealbugo laibachiiarabidopsisA. thalianaeffectorsmicrobial antagonismplant biologytranscriptomicsustilaginales

Identifiers

PMID33427195
PMCPMC7870139

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.