Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17429700›Full record

ReviewMycorrhiza2007

Using terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) to identify mycorrhizal fungi: a methods review.

I A Dickie, R G FitzJohn

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Mycorrhiza, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

2 authors.

I A DickieLandcare Research, P.O. Box 40, Lincoln, 7640, New Zealand. dickiei@landcareresearch.co.nz.
R G FitzJohnLandcare Research, P.O. Box 40, Lincoln, 7640, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) is an increasingly widely used technique in mycorrhizal ecology. In this paper, we review the technique as it is used to identify species of mycorrhizal fungi and distinguish two different versions of the technique: peak-profile T-RFLP (the original version) and database T-RFLP. We define database T-RFLP as the use of T-RFLP to identify individual species within samples by comparison of unknown data with a database of known T-RFLP patterns. This application of T-RFLP avoids some of the pitfalls of peak-profile T-RFLP and allows T-RFLP to be applied to polyphyletic functional groups such as ectomycorrhizal fungi. The identification of species using database T-RFLP is subject to several sources of potential error, including (1) random erroneous matches of peaks to species, (2) shared T-RFLP profiles across species, and (3) multiple T-RFLP profiles within a species. A mathematical approximation of the risk of the first type of error as a function of experimental parameters is discussed. Although potentially less accurate than some other methods such as clone libraries, the high throughput of database T-RFLP permits much greater replication and may, therefore, be preferable for many ecological questions, particularly when combined with other techniques such as cloning.

Indexed as

Polymorphism, Restriction Fragment LengthColony Count, MicrobialDatabases, GeneticDNA, FungalDNA PrimersDNA Restriction EnzymesDNA, Ribosomal SpacerMycological Typing TechniquesMycorrhizaePolymerase Chain ReactionSpecies SpecificityDNA, FungalDNA PrimersDNA Restriction EnzymesDNA, Ribosomal Spacer

Identifiers

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.