Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34389047›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2021

Plant developmental stage drives the differentiation in ecological role of the maize microbiome.

Chao Xiong, Brajesh K Singh, Ji-Zheng He, Yan-Lai Han, Pei-Pei Li, Li-Hua Wan, Guo-Zhong Meng, Si-Yi Liu, Jun-Tao Wang, Chuan-Fa Wu and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 173 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
173citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
61.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

173 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 405 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Microbiota assembly inmSystems · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

113 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Chao XiongState Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100085, China.
Brajesh K SinghGlobal Centre for Land-Based Innovation, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia.
Ji-Zheng HeState Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100085, China.
Yan-Lai HanCollege of Resource and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, 450002, China.
Pei-Pei LiCollege of Resource and Environmental Sciences, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, 450002, China.
Li-Hua WanSoil and Fertilizer Station of Qilin District, Qujing, Yunnan Province, Qujing, 655000, China.
Guo-Zhong MengSoil and Fertilizer Station of Qilin District, Qujing, Yunnan Province, Qujing, 655000, China.
Si-Yi LiuState Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100085, China.
Jun-Tao WangState Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100085, China.
Chuan-Fa WuState Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100085, China.
An-Hui GeState Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100085, China.
Li-Mei ZhangState Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100085, China. zhanglm@rcees.ac.cn.
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · CNChinese Academy of Sciences · CNHenan Agricultural University · CNQujing Normal University · CNResearch Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences · CNWestern Sydney University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPlants live with diverse microbial communities which profoundly affect multiple facets of host performance, but if and how host development impacts the assembly, functions and microbial interactions of crop microbiomes are poorly understood. Here we examined both bacterial and fungal communities across soils, epiphytic and endophytic niches of leaf and root, and plastic leaf of fake plant (representing environment-originating microbes) at three developmental stages of maize at two contrasting sites, and further explored the potential function of phylloplane microbiomes based on metagenomics.

resultsOur results suggested that plant developmental stage had a much stronger influence on the microbial diversity, composition and interkingdom networks in plant compartments than in soils, with the strongest effect in the phylloplane. Phylloplane microbiomes were co-shaped by both plant growth and seasonal environmental factors, with the air (represented by fake plants) as its important source. Further, we found that bacterial communities in plant compartments were more strongly driven by deterministic processes at the early stage but a similar pattern was for fungal communities at the late stage. Moreover, bacterial taxa played a more important role in microbial interkingdom network and crop yield prediction at the early stage, while fungal taxa did so at the late stage. Metagenomic analyses further indicated that phylloplane microbiomes possessed higher functional diversity at the early stage than the late stage, with functional genes related to nutrient provision enriched at the early stage and N assimilation and C degradation enriched at the late stage. Coincidently, more abundant beneficial bacterial taxa like Actinobacteria, Burkholderiaceae and Rhizobiaceae in plant microbiomes were observed at the early stage, but more saprophytic fungi at the late stage.

conclusionsOur results suggest that host developmental stage profoundly influences plant microbiome assembly and functions, and the bacterial and fungal microbiomes take a differentiated ecological role at different stages of plant development. This study provides empirical evidence for host exerting strong effect on plant microbiomes by deterministic selection during plant growth and development. These findings have implications for the development of future tools to manipulate microbiome for sustainable increase in primary productivity. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaZea maysBacteriaFungiPlant RootsCrop microbiomesMetagenomicsMicrobial interkingdom networksMicrobiome assemblyPhylloplane microbiomeSoil–plant continuumTemporal dynamics

Identifiers

PMID34389047
PMCPMC8364065
OpenAlexW3191577813

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.