The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bacterial Communities Associated with the Leaves and the Roots of Arabidopsis thaliana
Open accessAbstract
Diverse communities of bacteria inhabit plant leaves and roots and those bacteria play a crucial role for plant health and growth. Arabidopsis thaliana is an important model to study plant pathogen interactions, but little is known about its associated bacterial community under natural conditions. We used 454 pyrosequencing to characterize the bacterial communities associated with the roots and the leaves of wild A. thaliana collected at 4 sites; we further compared communities on the outside of the plants with communities in the endophytic compartments. We found that the most heavily sequenced bacteria in A. thaliana associated community are related to culturable species. Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Bacteroidetes are the most abundant phyla in both leaf and root samples. At the genus level, sequences of Massilia and Flavobacterium are prevalent in both samples. Organ (leaf vs root) and habitat (epiphytes vs endophytes) structure the community. In the roots, richness is higher in the epiphytic communities compared to the endophytic compartment (P = 0.024), while the reverse is true for the leaves (P = 0.032). Interestingly, leaf and root endophytic compartments do not differ in richness, diversity and evenness, while they differ in community composition (P = 0.001). The results show that although the communities associated with leaves and roots share many bacterial species, the associated communities differ in structure.
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
A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance
Anderson, M. J. (2001) · Austral Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.pp.x · Cited by 13,828
Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data
Legendre, P., & Gallagher, E. D. (2001) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s004420100716 · Cited by 5,556
Cited by
Turner, T. R., James, E. K., & Poole, P. S. (2013) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2013-14-6-209 · Cited by 1,349
Ikeda-Ohtsubo, W., Brugman, S., Warden, C. H., Rebel, J. M. J., Folkerts, G., & Pieterse, C. M. J. (2018) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2018.00090 · Cited by 115
Chen, Y., Ding, Q., Chao, Y., Wei, X., Wang, S., & Qiu, R. (2018) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.095 · Cited by 91
Oliveira, A. S., Alves, M., Leitão, F., Tacão, M., Henriques, I., Castro, P. M. L., & Amorim, C. L. (2023) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2023.119733 · Cited by 67
Deciphering Trifolium pratense L. holobiont reveals a microbiome resilient to future climate changes
Wahdan, S. F. M., Tanunchai, B., Wu, Y., Sansupa, C., Schädler, M., Dawoud, T. M., Buscot, F., & Purahong, W. (2021) · MicrobiologyOpen · doi:10.1002/mbo3.1217 · Cited by 15
Impact of Next-Generation Sequencing Technology in Plant–Microbe Interaction Study
Kumari, A., Sumer, S., Jalan, B., Nongbri, P. L., & Laskar, M. A. (2017) · Microbial Applications Vol.1 · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52666-9_13 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Bodenhausen, N., Horton, M. W., & Bergelson, J.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2013-02-15
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e56329
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2100886853
- Cited by
- 870
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 47.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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.