Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40178031›Full record

ReviewThe New phytologist2025

Exploited mutualism: the reciprocal effects of plant parasitic nematodes on the mechanisms underpinning plant-mutualist interactions.

Krzysztof Wieczorek, Chris A Bell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The New phytologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

2 authors.

Krzysztof WieczorekDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, Institute of Plant Protection, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, 3430, Tulln an der Donau, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4316-2600
Chris A BellSchool of Biology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7437-2793

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/X009823/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We are quickly gaining insights into the mechanisms and functions of plant-mutualist relationships with the common overarching aim of exploiting them to enhance food security and crop resilience. There is a growing mass of research describing various benefits of plant-mutualistic fungi, including increased nutrition, yields, and tolerance to biotic and abiotic factors. The bulk of this research has been focused on arbuscular mycorrhiza; however, there is now an expansion toward other plant mutualistic fungi. Contrary to the established 'mycorrhizal induced resistance' principle, increasing evidence shows that certain plant pests and pathogens may, in fact, exploit the benefits that mutualists provide their hosts, resulting in enhanced pathogenicity and reduced mutualist-derived benefits. In this Viewpoint, we propose that studying plant mutualistic fungi under controlled artificial conditions indeed provides in-depth knowledge but may mislead long-term applications as it does not accurately reflect multi-symbiont scenarios that occur in natura. We summarize the reciprocal impacts of plant pests, such as plant parasitic nematodes, on plant-fungal mutualisms and highlight how glasshouse experiments often yield contradictory results. We emphasize the need for collaborative efforts to increase the granularity of experimental systems, better reflecting natural environments to gain holistic insights into mutualist functions before applying them in sustainable crop protection strategies.

Indexed as

Host-Parasite InteractionsNematodaPlantsSymbiosisAnimalsFungiMycorrhizaePlant Diseasesarbuscular mycorrhizal fungimutualismplant parasitic nematodesplant pathologysymbiosis

Identifiers

PMID40178031
PMCPMC12095971

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.