Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35236879›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Genetically related genotypes of cowpea present similar bacterial community in the rhizosphere.

Tayná Mendes de Albuquerque, Lucas William Mendes, Sandra Mara Barbosa Rocha, Jadson Emanuel Lopes Antunes, Louise Melo de Souza Oliveira, Vania Maria Maciel Melo, Francisca Andrea Silva Oliveira, Arthur Prudêncio de Araujo Pereira, Veronica Brito da Silva, Regina Lucia Ferreira Gomes and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Tayná Mendes de AlbuquerquePlant Genetic Resource Group, Agricultural Science Center, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, PI, Brazil.
Lucas William MendesCenter for Nuclear Energy in Agriculture, University of Sao Paulo, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
Sandra Mara Barbosa RochaSoil Microbial Ecology Group, Agricultural Science Center, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, PI, Brazil.
Jadson Emanuel Lopes AntunesSoil Microbial Ecology Group, Agricultural Science Center, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, PI, Brazil.
Louise Melo de Souza OliveiraSoil Microbial Ecology Group, Agricultural Science Center, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, PI, Brazil.
Vania Maria Maciel MeloLaboratório de Ecologia Microbiana E Biotecnologia, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Francisca Andrea Silva OliveiraLaboratório de Ecologia Microbiana E Biotecnologia, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Arthur Prudêncio de Araujo PereiraSoil Science Department, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Veronica Brito da SilvaPlant Genetic Resource Group, Agricultural Science Center, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, PI, Brazil.
Regina Lucia Ferreira GomesPlant Genetic Resource Group, Agricultural Science Center, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, PI, Brazil.
Francisco de Alcantara NetoPlant Genetic Resource Group, Agricultural Science Center, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, PI, Brazil.
Angela Celis de Almeida LopesPlant Genetic Resource Group, Agricultural Science Center, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, PI, Brazil.
Maurisrael de Moura RochaEmbrapa Meio Norte, Teresina, PI, Brazil.
Ademir Sergio Ferreira AraujoSoil Microbial Ecology Group, Agricultural Science Center, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, PI, Brazil. asfaruaj@yahoo.com.br.
Universidade Federal do Piauí · BRUniversidade Federal do Ceará · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant breeding reduces the genetic diversity of plants and could influence the composition, structure, and diversity of the rhizosphere microbiome, selecting more homogeneous and specialized microbes. In this study, we used 16S rRNA sequencing to assess the bacterial community in the rhizosphere of different lines and modern cowpea cultivars, to investigate the effect of cowpea breeding on bacterial community assembly. Thus, two African lines (IT85F-2687 and IT82D-60) and two Brazilian cultivars (BRS-Guariba and BRS-Tumucumaque) of cowpea were assessed to verify if the generation advance and genetic breeding influence the bacterial community in the rhizosphere. No significant differences were found in the structure, richness, and diversity of bacterial community structure between the rhizosphere of the different cowpea genotypes, and only slight differences were found at the OTU level. The complexity of the co-occurrence network decreased from African lines to Brazilian cultivars. Regarding functional prediction, the core functions were significantly altered according to the genotypes. In general, African lines presented a more abundance of groups related to chemoheterotrophy, while the rhizosphere of the modern cultivars decreased functions related to cellulolysis. This study showed that the genetic breeding process affects the dynamics of the rhizosphere community, decreasing the complexity of interaction in one cultivar. As these cowpea genotypes are genetically related, it could suggest a new hypothesis of how genetic breeding of similar genotypes could influence the rhizosphere microbiome.

Indexed as

RhizosphereVignaBacteriaGenotypePlant BreedingPlant RootsPlantsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSoil MicrobiologyRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID35236879
PMCPMC8891268
OpenAlexW4214828896

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.