Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15184977›Full record

ReviewEMBO reports2004

Multicellular microorganisms: laboratory versus nature.

Zdena Palková

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EMBO reports, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Depuration ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Syotti: scalable bait design for DNA enrichment.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2022
    Article
  14. Interplay between rhizosphericFrontiers in plant science · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. The Flo Adhesin Family.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

1 author.

Zdena PalkováDepartment of Genetics and Microbiology, Charles University, Vinicná 5, 12844 Prague 2, Czech Republic. zdenap@natur.cuni.cz

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our present in-depth knowledge of the physiology and regulatory mechanisms of microorganisms has arisen from our ability to remove them from their natural, complex ecosystems into pure liquid cultures. These cultures are grown under optimized laboratory conditions and allow us to study microorganisms as individuals. However, microorganisms naturally grow in conditions that are far from optimal, which causes them to become organized into multicellular communities that are better protected against the harmful environment. Moreover, this multicellular existence allows individual cells to differentiate and acquire specific properties, such as forming resistant spores, which benefit the whole population. The relocation of natural microorganisms to the laboratory can result in their adaptation to these favourable conditions, which is accompanied by complex changes that include the repression of some protective mechanisms that are essential in nature. Laboratory microorganisms that have been cultured for long periods under optimized conditions might therefore differ markedly from those that exist in natural ecosystems.

Indexed as

NatureAnimalsBacillus subtilisCell DifferentiationClinical Laboratory TechniquesEnvironmentSaccharomyces cerevisiaeSignal Transduction

Identifiers

PMID15184977
PMCPMC1299056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.