ArticleMicrobial ecology2005
Different marine heterotrophic nanoflagellates affect differentially the composition of enriched bacterial communities.
Article in Microbial ecology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mixotrophic Phytoflagellate Bacterivory Field Measurements Strongly Biased by Standard Approaches: A Case Study.Frontiers in microbiology · 2017Article
- Identification of ciliate grazers of autotrophic bacteria in ammonia-oxidizing activated sludge by RNA stable isotope probing.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We studied the effects of predation on the cytometric and phylogenetic features of two enriched bacterial communities obtained from two cultures of marine heterotrophic nanoflagellates: Jakoba libera and a mixed culture of Cafeteria sp. and Monosiga sp. Protists were harvested by flow cytometric cell sorting and eight different treatments were prepared. Each bacterial community was incubated with and without protists, and we added two treatments with protists and the bacteria present after the sorting procedure (cosorted bacteria). The bacterial community derived from the culture of Jakoba libera had higher green fluorescence per cell (FL1) than that derived from the mixed culture of Cafeteria sp. and Monosiga sp. When the experiment began all treatments presented bacterial communities that increase in fluorescence per bacterium (FL1); after that the FL1 decreased when bacteria attained maximal concentrations; and, finally, there was a new increase in FL1 toward the end of the experiment. Cosorted bacteria of Jakoba libera had the same fluorescence as the bacterial community derived from this protist, while the bacteria derived from the mixed culture of Cafeteria sp. and Monosiga sp. was nearly twice as fluorescent than that of the parental community. All treatments presented a general decline of SSC along the incubation. Therefore, there was a small influence of protists on the cytometric signature of each bacterial community. However, each bacterial community preyed by Jakoba libera or the mixed culture of Cafeteria sp. and Monosiga sp. led to four different phylogenetic fingerprint. Besides, the final Communities were different from the fingerprint of controls without protists, and most of them diverge from the fingerprint of cosorted bacteria. Our results confirm that changes in the phylogenetic composition of marine bacterial communities may depend on the initial communities of both bacteria and protists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.