ArticlePloS one2023
Can endophytic microbial compositions in cane roots be shaped by different propagation methods.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In practical production, cane stems with buds are generally used as seed for propagation. However, long-terms cane stems only easily lead to some problems such as disease sensitivity, quality loss, etc. Recently, cane seedings, which are produced by tissue culture were used in sugarcane production, but few studies on cane health related to tissue culture seedings. Therefore, to evaluate the immunity and health of sugarcanes growing from different reproduction modes, the endophytic microbial compositions in cane roots between stem and tissue culture seedlings were analyzed using high-throughput techniques. The results showed that the endophytic microbial compositions in cane roots were significant differences between stem and tissue culture seedlings. At the genus level, Pantoea, Bacillus, Streptomyces, Lechevalieria, Pseudomonas, Nocardioides, unclassified_f__Comamonadaceae enriched as the dominant endophytic bacterial genera, and Rhizoctonia, Sarocladium, Scytalidium, Wongia, Fusarium, unclassified_f__Phaeosphaer, unclassified_c__Sordariom, unclassified_f__Stachybot, Poaceascoma, Microdochium, Arnium, Echria, Mycena and Exophiala enriched as the dominant endophytic fungal genera in cane roots growing from the tissue culture seedlings. In contrast, Mycobacterium, Massilia, Ralstonia, unclassified_f__Pseudonocardiacea, norank_f__Micropepsaceae, Leptothrix and Bryobacter were the dominant endophytic bacterial genera, and unclassified_k__Fungi, unclassified_f__Marasmiaceae, Talaromyces, unclassified_c__Sordariomycetes and Trichocladium were the dominant endophytic fungal genera in cane roots growing from stem seedlings. Additionally, the numbers of bacterial and fungal operational taxonomic units (OTUs) in cane roots growing from tissue culture seedlings were significantly higher than those of stem seedlings. It indicates that not only the endophytic microbial compositions in cane roots can be shaped by different propagation methods, but also the stress resistance of sugarcanes can be improved by the tissue culture propagation method.
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.