Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40788906›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Comparison and selection of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for disease assays on plant pathogenic viruses and bacteria in greenhouses.

Anne K J Giesbers, Barendinus J A van Doorn, Joanieke van Oorspronk, Carla Oplaat, Christel de Krom, Maria Bergsma-Vlami, Annelien Roenhorst

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Anne K J GiesbersNetherlands Institute for Vectors, Invasive plants and Plant health (NIVIP), National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO), Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA), Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5062-8435
Barendinus J A van DoornNetherlands Institute for Vectors, Invasive plants and Plant health (NIVIP), National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO), Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA), Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Joanieke van OorspronkNetherlands Institute for Vectors, Invasive plants and Plant health (NIVIP), National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO), Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA), Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Carla OplaatNetherlands Institute for Vectors, Invasive plants and Plant health (NIVIP), National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO), Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA), Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Christel de KromNetherlands Institute for Vectors, Invasive plants and Plant health (NIVIP), National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO), Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA), Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Maria Bergsma-VlamiNetherlands Institute for Vectors, Invasive plants and Plant health (NIVIP), National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO), Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA), Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Annelien RoenhorstNetherlands Institute for Vectors, Invasive plants and Plant health (NIVIP), National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO), Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA), Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Supplemental lighting in greenhouses has traditionally been dominated by high-pressure sodium (HPS) lights. However, a shift towards light-emitting diode (LED) technology is gaining momentum due to its energy efficiency, customizable light spectra, and adjustable light intensity, which together allow for more precise control over plant development. In plant pathogen diagnostics, where symptom expression is essential, HPS lights have typically been used in greenhouse settings. Since LEDs are generally optimized to promote plant growth and quality, they may affect plant physiology, including responses to pathogens. To investigate how different lighting sources affect the expression of viral and bacterial disease symptoms, two types of LEDs with different spectra were compared with the traditionally used HPS lights. LEDs with a "daylight" spectrum, featuring pronounced blue and red peaks resulted in poor virus symptom expression, though the expression of bacterial symptoms was less affected. In contrast, LEDs with a broad spectrum - characterized by a modest blue peak, a prominent red peak, and a small far-red peak - elicited virus and bacterial symptoms similar to those observed under HPS lights, when adjusted at equal light intensity level. This study provides insights into symptom development in plants inoculated with viruses and bacteria under various lighting conditions, highlighting the influence of light intensity and spectrum. Based on the results of this comparative study, "broad spectrum with far-red" LEDs were identified that are suitable for disease assays on plant pathogenic viruses and bacteria.

Indexed as

BacteriaLightLightingPlant DiseasesPlant Viruses

Identifiers

PMID40788906
PMCPMC12338770

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.