ArticleMicrobial ecology2010
Substrate utilization profiles of bacterial strains in plankton from the River Warnow, a humic and eutrophic river in north Germany.
Article in Microbial ecology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bacterial diversity and their metabolic profiles in the sedimentary environments of Ny-Ålesund, Arctic.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2021Article
- Bacterial epibionts of Daphnia: a potential route for the transfer of dissolved organic carbon in freshwater food webs.The ISME journal · 2014Article
- Winter bloom of a rare betaproteobacterium in the Arctic Ocean.Frontiers in microbiology · 2014Article
- Functional diversity of bacterioplankton in three North Florida freshwater lakes over an annual cycle.Microbial ecology · 2014Article
- Biofilm formation and microbial community analysis of the simulated river bioreactor for contaminated source water remediation.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2012Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bacteria are very important degraders of organic substances in aquatic environments. Despite their influential role in the carbon (and many other element) cycle(s), the specific genetic identity of active bacteria is mostly unknown, although contributing phylogenetic groups had been investigated. Moreover, the degree to which phenotypic potential (i. e., utilization of environmentally relevant carbon substrates) is related to the genomic identity of bacteria or bacterial groups is unclear. The present study compared the genomic fingerprints of 27 bacterial isolates from the humic River Warnow with their ability to utilize 14 environmentally relevant substrates. Acetate was the only substrate utilized by all bacterial strains. Only 60% of the strains respired glucose, but this substrate always stimulated the highest bacterial activity (respiration and growth). Two isolates, both closely related to the same Pseudomonas sp., also had very similar substrate utilization patterns. However, similar substrate utilization profiles commonly belonged to genetically different strains (e.g., the substrate profile of Janthinobacterium lividum OW6/RT-3 and Flavobacterium sp. OW3/15-5 differed by only three substrates). Substrate consumption was sometimes totally different for genetically related isolates. Thus, the genomic profiles of bacterial strains were not congruent with their different substrate utilization profiles. Additionally, changes in pre-incubation conditions strongly influenced substrate utilization. Therefore, it is problematic to infer substrate utilization and especially microbial dissolved organic matter transformation in aquatic systems from bacterial molecular taxonomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19936822What 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.