ReviewArchives of microbiology2026
Molecular markers for the study of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
Review in Archives of microbiology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are central components of terrestrial ecosystems and agroecosystems. However, their accurate identification remains methodologically challenging due to their complex biology and the limitations of traditional morphological approaches. Over the past three decades, molecular tools have profoundly reshaped AMF research, shifting from spore-based identification and Sanger sequencing of ribosomal markers toward high-throughput amplicon sequencing and, more recently, metagenomic frameworks that enable community-level and functional analyses. This review critically examines the conceptual and technical evolution of AMF identification strategies, comparing morphological characterization, ribosomal DNA markers (SSU, ITS, LSU), multilocus approaches, metabarcoding, and whole-genome metagenomics. We analyze their taxonomic coverage, resolution, and methodological biases, including primer specificity, intragenomic rDNA variation, database limitations, and bioinformatic pipeline effects. Attention is given to how marker selection influences ecological interpretation, cross-study comparability, and functional inference. Finally, we propose practical guidelines for aligning marker choice with study objectives and outline validation strategies-such as mock communities, curated reference databases, and multi-marker integration-to improve reproducibility and taxonomic robustness. By integrating historical perspective, methodological evaluation, and applied recommendations, this review provides a decision-oriented framework to support more accurate and comparable assessments of Glomeromycota diversity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42217053What 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.