↓ Skip to main content

Diversity and Activity of Lysobacter Species from Disease Suppressive Soils

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diversity and Activity of Lysobacter Species from Disease Suppressive Soils
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01243
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth Gómez Expósito, Joeke Postma, Jos M. Raaijmakers, Irene De Bruijn

Abstract

The genus Lysobacter includes several species that produce a range of extracellular enzymes and other metabolites with activity against bacteria, fungi, oomycetes, and nematodes. Lysobacter species were found to be more abundant in soil suppressive against the fungal root pathogen Rhizoctonia solani, but their actual role in disease suppression is still unclear. Here, the antifungal and plant growth-promoting activities of 18 Lysobacter strains, including 11 strains from Rhizoctonia-suppressive soils, were studied both in vitro and in vivo. Based on 16S rRNA sequencing, the Lysobacter strains from the Rhizoctonia-suppressive soil belonged to the four species Lysobacter antibioticus, Lysobacter capsici, Lysobacter enzymogenes, and Lysobacter gummosus. Most strains showed strong in vitro activity against R. solani and several other pathogens, including Pythium ultimum, Aspergillus niger, Fusarium oxysporum, and Xanthomonas campestris. When the Lysobacter strains were introduced into soil, however, no significant and consistent suppression of R. solani damping-off disease of sugar beet and cauliflower was observed. Subsequent bioassays further revealed that none of the Lysobacter strains was able to promote growth of sugar beet, cauliflower, onion, and Arabidopsis thaliana, either directly or via volatile compounds. The lack of in vivo activity is most likely attributed to poor colonization of the rhizosphere by the introduced Lysobacter strains. In conclusion, our results demonstrated that Lysobacter species have strong antagonistic activities against a range of pathogens, making them an important source for putative new enzymes and antimicrobial compounds. However, their potential role in R. solani disease suppressive soil could not be confirmed. In-depth omics'-based analyses will be needed to shed more light on the potential contribution of Lysobacter species to the collective activities of microbial consortia in disease suppressive soils.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 147 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 19%
Researcher 22 15%
Student > Master 19 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 37 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 66 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 11%
Environmental Science 7 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 1%
Unspecified 2 1%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 46 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 14 December 2015.
All research outputs
#2,165,657
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#1,650
of 24,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,403
of 252,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#30
of 408 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,810 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 252,470 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 408 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.