The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bacterial communities in the rhizosphere, phyllosphere and endosphere of tomato plants
Open accessAbstract
Plants harbor diverse bacterial communities, which play crucial roles in plant health and growth, in their rhizosphere, phyllosphere and endosphere. Tomato is an important model for studying plant-microbe interactions, but comparison of its associated bacterial community is still lacking. In this study, using Illumina sequencing of 16S rRNA amplicons, we characterized and compared the bacterial size and community from rootzone soil as well as the rhizosphere, phyllosphere and endosphere of roots, stems, leaves, fruits and seeds of tomato plants that were grown in greenhouse conditions. Habitat (soil, phyllospheric, and endophytic) structured the community. The bacterial communities from the soil-type samples (rootzone soil and rhizosphere) showed the highest richness and diversity. The lowest bacterial diversity occurred in the phyllospheric samples, while the lowest richness occurred in the endosphere. Among the endophytic samples, both bacterial diversity and richness varied in different tissues, with the highest values in roots. The most abundant phyla in the tomato-associated community was Proteobacteria, with the exception of the seeds and jelly, where both Proteobacteria and Firmicutes were dominant. At the genus level, the sequences of Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter were prevalent in the rhizosphere, and in the phyllosphere, more than 97% of the sequences were assigned to Acinetobacter. For the endophytes, Acinetobacter, Enterobacter, and Pseudomonas were the abundant genera in the roots, stems and leaves. In the fruits, the bacterial endophytes varied in different compartments, with Enterobacter being enriched in the pericarp and seeds, Acinetobacter in the placenta, and Weissella in the jelly. The present data provide a comprehensive description of the tomato-associated bacterial community and will be useful for better understanding plant-microbe interactions and selecting suitable bacterial taxa for tomato production.
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
UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection
Edgar, R. C., Haas, B. J., Clemente, J. C., Quince, C., & Knight, R. (2011) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr381 · Cited by 15,114
UniFrac: a New Phylogenetic Method for Comparing Microbial Communities
Lozupone, C., & Knight, R. (2005) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.71.12.8228-8235.2005 · Cited by 8,227
Structure and functions of the bacterial microbiota of plants
Bulgarelli, D., Schlaeppi, K., Spaepen, S., van Themaat, E. V. L., & Schulze-Lefert, P. (2013) · Annual Review of Plant Biology · doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120106 · Cited by 3,308
Mendes, R., Garbeva, P., & Raaijmakers, J. M. (2013) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1111/1574-6976.12028 · Cited by 2,820
Microbial life in the phyllosphere
Vorholt, J. A. (2012) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro2910 · Cited by 2,303
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
Reducing the Effects of PCR Amplification and Sequencing Artifacts on 16S rRNA-Based Studies
Schloss, P. D., Gevers, D., & Westcott, S. L. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027310 · Cited by 2,112
The rhizosphere: a playground and battlefield for soilborne pathogens and beneficial microorganisms
Raaijmakers, J. M., Paulitz, T. C., Steinberg, C., Alabouvette, C., & Moënne-Loccoz, Y. (2009) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-008-9568-6 · Cited by 1,706
Properties of bacterial endophytes and their proposed role in plant growth
Hardoim, P. R., van Overbeek, L. S., & Elsas, J. D. V. (2008) · Trends in Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.tim.2008.07.008 · Cited by 1,688
Bacterial Endophytes and Their Interactions with Hosts
Rosenblueth, M., & Martínez-Romero, E. (2006) · Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions® · doi:10.1094/mpmi-19-0827 · Cited by 1,483
Metadata
- Authors
- Dong, C.-J., Wang, L.-L., Li, Q., & Shang, Q.-M.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2019-11-08
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- e0223847
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2985999327
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 49
- FWCI
- 18.17
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bacterial communities in the rhizosphere, phyllosphere and endosphere of tomato plants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0223847
- The paper
- Dong, C.-J., Wang, L.-L., Li, Q., & Shang, Q.-M. (2019). Bacterial communities in the rhizosphere, phyllosphere and endosphere of tomato plants. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223847
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.