↓ Skip to main content

Diversity of bacterial endophytes in Panax ginseng and their protective effects against pathogens

Overview of attention for article published in 3 Biotech, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Diversity of bacterial endophytes in Panax ginseng and their protective effects against pathogens
Published in
3 Biotech, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13205-018-1417-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chi Eun Hong, Jang Uk Kim, Jung Woo Lee, Sung Woo Lee, Ick-Hyun Jo

Abstract

Although endophytic bacteria are known to colonize Panax ginseng, little is known about their diversity and roles. We addressed in the present study by comparing endophytic bacterial populations in P. ginseng plants of different ages (2-6 years) and in various tissue types (root, stem, leaf, and flower stalk). A total of 116 strains assigned to 42 species were identified by 16S rDNA sequencing. The predominant phylum was Firmicutes. Two-year-old ginseng plants and root tissues showed the greatest diversity of endophytic bacteria, with Bacillales being the predominant order. The antifungal activity of isolates against two pathogens, Cylindrocarpon destructans and/or Botrytis cinerea, was evaluated in dual-culture assays. In total, 28 strains showed antifungal activity with PgBE14 (Bacillus amyloliquefaciens), PgBE40 (B. megaterium), PgBE39, PgBE45 (Pseudomonas frederiksbergensis), and PgBE42 (Staphylococcus saprophyticus) inhibiting both pathogens. These results improve our understanding of the structure and diversity of endophytic bacterial communities of P. ginseng and identify strains with antifungal activity that have potential applications as biocontrol agents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 13 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 32%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 7%
Engineering 1 4%
Unknown 14 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,990,045
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from 3 Biotech
#583
of 1,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,112
of 336,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from 3 Biotech
#17
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,253 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,140 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.