ArticleBiology direct2010
Some considerations for analyzing biodiversity using integrative metagenomics and gene networks.
Article in Biology direct, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metatranscriptomes-based sequence similarity networks uncover genetic signatures within parasitic freshwater microbial eukaryotes.Microbiome · 2025Article
- Ecology of planktonic ciliates in a changing world: Concepts, methods, and challenges.The Journal of eukaryotic microbiology · 2022Review
- Towards omics-based predictions of planktonic functional composition from environmental data.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Reappraising plastid markers of the red algae for phylogenetic community ecology in the genomic era.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- Properties of Samples With Segregating Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Dropout Mutations Within a Species.Evolutionary bioinformatics online · 2019Article
- MultiTwin: A Software Suite to Analyze Evolution at Multiple Levels of Organization Using Multipartite Graphs.Genome biology and evolution · 2018Article
- Tracking the Rules of Transmission and Introgression with Networks.Microbiology spectrum · 2018Review
- Addressing Global Ruminant Agricultural Challenges Through Understanding the Rumen Microbiome: Past, Present, and Future.Frontiers in microbiology · 2018Review
- Network-Thinking: Graphs to Analyze Microbial Complexity and Evolution.Trends in microbiology · 2016Review
- Comparison of three clustering approaches for detecting novel environmental microbial diversity.PeerJ · 2016Article
- Testing ecological theories with sequence similarity networks: marine ciliates exhibit similar geographic dispersal patterns as multicellular organisms.BMC biology · 2015Article
- 20 years since the introduction of DNA barcoding: from theory to application.Journal of applied genetics · 2014Review
- A morphogenetic survey on ciliate plankton from a mountain lake pinpoints the necessity of lineage-specific barcode markers in microbial ecology.Environmental microbiology · 2014Article
- A multilocus species delimitation reveals a striking number of species of coralline algae forming Maerl in the OSPAR maritime area.PloS one · 2014Article
- Interactions in the microbiome: communities of organisms and communities of genes.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2014Review
- Sequence comparative analysis using networks: software for evaluating de novo transcript assembly from next-generation sequencing.Molecular biology and evolution · 2013Article
- EGN: a wizard for construction of gene and genome similarity networks.BMC evolutionary biology · 2013Article
- Computational meta'omics for microbial community studies.Molecular systems biology · 2013Review
- Goods-thinking vs. tree-thinking: Finding a place for mobile genetic elements.Mobile genetic elements · 2011Article
- Of woods and webs: possible alternatives to the tree of life for studying genomic fluidity in E. coli.Biology direct · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImproving knowledge of biodiversity will benefit conservation biology, enhance bioremediation studies, and could lead to new medical treatments. However there is no standard approach to estimate and to compare the diversity of different environments, or to study its past, and possibly, future evolution. PRESENTATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS: We argue that there are two conditions for significant progress in the identification and quantification of biodiversity. First, integrative metagenomic studies - aiming at the simultaneous examination (or even better at the integration) of observations about the elements, functions and evolutionary processes captured by the massive sequencing of multiple markers - should be preferred over DNA barcoding projects and over metagenomic projects based on a single marker. Second, such metagenomic data should be studied with novel inclusive network-based approaches, designed to draw inferences both on the many units and on the many processes present in the environments. TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS: We reached these conclusions through a comparison of the theoretical foundations of two molecular approaches seeking to assess biodiversity: metagenomics (mostly used on prokaryotes and protists) and DNA barcoding (mostly used on multicellular eukaryotes), and by pragmatic considerations of the issues caused by the 'species problem' in biodiversity studies. IMPLICATIONS OF THE HYPOTHESIS: Evolutionary gene networks reduce the risk of producing biodiversity estimates with limited explanatory power, biased either by unequal rates of LGT, or difficult to interpret due to (practical) problems caused by type I and type II grey zones. Moreover, these networks would easily accommodate additional (meta)transcriptomic and (meta)proteomic data.
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.