The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Plant compartment and biogeography affect microbiome composition in cultivated and native Agave species
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Desert plants are hypothesized to survive the environmental stress inherent to these regions in part thanks to symbioses with microorganisms, and yet these microbial species, the communities they form, and the forces that influence them are poorly understood. Here we report the first comprehensive investigation of the microbial communities associated with species of Agave, which are native to semiarid and arid regions of Central and North America and are emerging as biofuel feedstocks. We examined prokaryotic and fungal communities in the rhizosphere, phyllosphere, leaf and root endosphere, as well as proximal and distal soil samples from cultivated and native agaves, through Illumina amplicon sequencing. Phylogenetic profiling revealed that the composition of prokaryotic communities was primarily determined by the plant compartment, whereas the composition of fungal communities was mainly influenced by the biogeography of the host species. Cultivated A. tequilana exhibited lower levels of prokaryotic diversity compared with native agaves, although no differences in microbial diversity were found in the endosphere. Agaves shared core prokaryotic and fungal taxa known to promote plant growth and confer tolerance to abiotic stress, which suggests common principles underpinning Agave–microbe interactions.
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
Cites
Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants: the hologenome theory of evolution
Zilber-Rosenberg, I., & Rosenberg, E. (2008) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.2008.00123.x · Cited by 1,739
Turner, T. R., James, E. K., & Poole, P. S. (2013) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2013-14-6-209 · Cited by 1,349
Cited by
Backer, R., Rokem, J. S., Ilangumaran, G., Lamont, J., Praslickova, D., Ricci, E., Subramanian, S., & Smith, D. L. (2018) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01473 · Cited by 2,114
Host genotype and age shape the leaf and root microbiomes of a wild perennial plant
Wagner, M. R., Lundberg, D. S., del Rio, T. G., Tringe, S. G., Dangl, J. L., & Mitchell-Olds, T. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms12151 · Cited by 990
Self-citationHiruma, K., Gerlach, N., Sacristán, S., Nakano, R. T., Hacquard, S., Kracher, B., Neumann, U., Ramírez, D., Bucher, M., O’Connell, R. J., et al. (2016) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2016.02.028 · Cited by 652
Interplay Between Innate Immunity and the Plant Microbiota
Hacquard, S., Spaepen, S., Garrido-Oter, R., & Schulze-Lefert, P. (2017) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-080516-035623 · Cited by 513
The Populus holobiont: dissecting the effects of plant niches and genotype on the microbiome
Cregger, M. A., Veach, A. M., Yang, Z. K., Crouch, M. J., Vilgalys, R., Tuskan, G. A., & Schadt, C. W. (2018) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-018-0413-8 · Cited by 435
Metadata
- Authors
- Coleman‐Derr, D., Desgarennes, D., Fonseca‐Garcia, C., Gross, S., Clingenpeel, S., Woyke, T., North, G., Visel, A., Partida‐Martinez, L. P., & Tringe, S. G.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-10-15
- Volume
- 209
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 798-811
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2147110714
- Cited by
- 723
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 46.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
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.