The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The mycorrhiza helper bacteria revisited
Abstract
Summary: In natural conditions, mycorrhizal fungi are surrounded by complex microbial communities, which modulate the mycorrhizal symbiosis. Here, the focus is on the so‐called ‘mycorrhiza helper bacteria’ (MHB). This concept is revisited, and the distinction is made between the helper bacteria, which assist mycorrhiza formation, and those that interact positively with the functioning of the symbiosis. After considering some examples of MHB from the literature, the ecological and evolutionary implications of the relationships of MHB with mycorrhizal fungi are discussed. The question of the specificity of the MHB effect is addressed, and an assessment is made of progress in understanding the mechanisms of the MHB effect, which has been made possible through the development of genomics. Finally, clear evidence is presented suggesting that some MHB promote the functioning of the mycorrhizal symbiosis. This is illustrated for three critical functions of practical significance: nutrient mobilization from soil minerals, fixation of atmospheric nitrogen, and protection of plants against root pathogens. The review concludes with discussion of future research priorities regarding the potentially very fruitful concept of MHB. Contents Summary 22 I. Introduction 23 II. Evidence for the occurrence of MHB 23 III. Ecological and evolutionary implications of MHB 23 IV. The question of MHB specificity 27 V. Mechanisms of the MHB effect 28 VI. Role of MHB in mycorrhizal functions 31 VII. Conclusions and research priorities 32 References 33
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Forest microbiome: diversity, complexity and dynamics
Baldrian, P. (2016) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1093/femsre/fuw040 · Cited by 710
Drigo, B., Pijl, A. S., Duyts, H., Kielak, A. M., Gamper, H. A., Houtekamer, M. J., Boschker, H. T. S., Bodelier, P. L. E., Whiteley, A. S., Veen, J. A. V., et al. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0912421107 · Cited by 470
Ramirez, K. S., Leff, J. W., Barberán, A., Bates, S. T., Betley, J., Crowther, T. W., Kelly, E. F., Oldfield, E. E., Shaw, E. A., Steenbock, C., et al. (2014) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1988 · Cited by 423
TAYLOR, L. L., LEAKE, J. R., QUIRK, J., HARDY, K., BANWART, S. A., & BEERLING, D. J. (2009) · Geobiology · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4669.2009.00194.x · Cited by 331
Foulon, J., Zappelini, C., Durand, A., Valot, B., Blaudez, D., & Chalot, M. (2016) · FEMS Microbiology Ecology · doi:10.1093/femsec/fiw163 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Frey‐Klett, P., Garbaye, J., & Tarkka, M.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-08-30
- Volume
- 176
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 22-36
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2114340982
- Cited by
- 966
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 36.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The mycorrhiza helper bacteria revisited. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02191.x
- The paper
- Frey‐Klett, P., Garbaye, J., & Tarkka, M. (2007). The mycorrhiza helper bacteria revisited. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02191.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.