ArticleScientific reports2024
Metataxonomic analysis of endophytic bacteria of blackberry (Rubus ulmifolius Schott) across tissues and environmental conditions.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioprospecting of the Phylum Bacteroidota for Sustainable Agriculture.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Microbiota and horizontal microbial transmission dynamics associated with bramble (Rubus spp.) flowers.Environmental microbiome · 2026Article
- Impact of Different Microbial Biostimulants and Salt Stress on the Endophytome of the Edible Part of Lettuce and Tomato Plants.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Endophytic bacteria represent an important component of plant wellness. They have been widely studied for their involvement in plant development and enhancement of stress tolerance. In this work, the endophytic communities of roots, stems, and leaves of blackberry (Rubus ulmifolius Schott) were studied in three different niches: natural, riverside, and human-impacted niches. (2) Results: The microbiome composition revealed that Sphingomonadaceae was the most abundant family in all samples, accounting for 9.4-45.8%. In contrast, other families seem to be linked to a specific tissue or niche. Families Microbacteriaceae and Hymenobacteraceae increased their presence in stem and leaf samples, while Burkholderiaceae abundance was important in riverside samples. Alpha and beta diversity analyses showed that root samples were the most diverse, and they gathered together in the same cluster, apart from the rest of the samples. (3) Conclusions: The analysis of the microbiome of R. ulmifolius plants revealed that the composition was essentially the same in different niches; the differences were primarily influenced by plant tissue factors with a core genome dominated by Sphingomonadaceae. Additionally, it was observed that R. ulmifolius can select its own microbiome, and this remains constant in all tissues evaluated regardless the niche of sampling.
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.