ArticleBMC microbiology2025
Unravelling the complex relationship between Suillus bovinus and Gomphidius roseus through investigation of their sporocarps in Pinus massoniana forests.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe co-occurrence of sporocarps has revealed many intimate associations between different ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi species. The co-occurrence of sporocarps of Suillus bovinus and Gomphidius roseus, two edible ECM fungi, is well recognized; however, the interactions between them remain largely unknown. This study investigated the relationship between these two fungi occurring in Pinus massoniana forests through phenological, microbiome, and metabolome analyses.
resultsGomphidius roseus sporocarps were always found alongside sporocarps of S. bovinus, but not vice versa. The ECM associated with S. bovinus sporocarps exhibited a long-distance exploration type, whereas the ECM associated with G. roseus sporocarps formed a contact exploration type. Both S. bovinus and G. roseus sporocarps and ECM contained the mycelia of both fungi. In contrast, different fungal sporocarps and ECM were dominated by distinct bacterial species. Suillus bovinus sporocarps were recorded in all ages investigated, ranging from 1 to 5 years old to over 30 years old. In contrast, G. roseus sporocarps were mainly found in forests older than 10 years. Previous studies suggested that G. roseus parasitizes S. bovinus; however, the occurrence of G. roseus sporocarps did not significantly affect S. bovinus sporocarp production or P. massoniana growth, challenging this assumption. Despite their intimate interactions, the metabolic profiles of S. bovinus sporocarps more closely resembled those of S. luteus, not G. roseus.
conclusionOverall, our analyses showed both similarities and dissimilarities in phenology, microbiome, and metabolome features between the two fungi, and the genesis of G. roseus sporocarps is highly dependent on S. bovinus. These results further indicate that while the formation of ECM between G. roseus and the host may rely on ECM formed by S. bovinus and the same host, it is not parasitic.
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.