Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34017351›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2021

Rhizobial Chemoattractants, the Taste and Preferences of Legume Symbionts.

K Karl Compton, Birgit E Scharf

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Movement of bacteria in the soil and the rhizosphere.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Signaling in Legume-Rhizobia Symbiosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  8. International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. A New Face of the Old Gene: Deletion of theInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Frontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

K Karl ComptonDepartment of Biological Sciences, Life Sciences I, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, United States.
Birgit E ScharfDepartment of Biological Sciences, Life Sciences I, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, United States.
Virginia Tech · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of host-microbe interactions between legumes and their cognate rhizobia requires localization of the bacteria to productive sites of initiation on the plant roots. This end is achieved by the motility apparatus that propels the bacterium and the chemotaxis system that guides it. Motility and chemotaxis aid rhizobia in their competitiveness for space, resources, and nodulation opportunities. Here, we examine studies on chemotaxis of three major model rhizobia, namely

Indexed as

bacterial survivalflagellar motilityplant-host exudateplant-microbe signalingrhizospheresymbiosis

Identifiers

PMID34017351
PMCPMC8129513
OpenAlexW3157578188

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.