Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21183646›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2011

Accessing the soil metagenome for studies of microbial diversity.

Tom O Delmont, Patrick Robe, Sébastien Cecillon, Ian M Clark, Florentin Constancias, Pascal Simonet, Penny R Hirsch, Timothy M Vogel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing 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

87 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The ecological context of enzymatic variation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Bacterial diversity in the aquatic system in India based on metagenome analysis-a critical review.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Tom O DelmontEnvironmental Microbial Genomics, Laboratoire Ampere, Ecole Centrale de Lyon, Université de Lyon, 36 Avenue Guy de Collongue, 69134 Ecully, France.
Patrick Robe
Sébastien Cecillon
Ian M Clark
Florentin Constancias
Pascal Simonet
Penny R Hirsch
Timothy M Vogel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Soil microbial communities contain the highest level of prokaryotic diversity of any environment, and metagenomic approaches involving the extraction of DNA from soil can improve our access to these communities. Most analyses of soil biodiversity and function assume that the DNA extracted represents the microbial community in the soil, but subsequent interpretations are limited by the DNA recovered from the soil. Unfortunately, extraction methods do not provide a uniform and unbiased subsample of metagenomic DNA, and as a consequence, accurate species distributions cannot be determined. Moreover, any bias will propagate errors in estimations of overall microbial diversity and may exclude some microbial classes from study and exploitation. To improve metagenomic approaches, investigate DNA extraction biases, and provide tools for assessing the relative abundances of different groups, we explored the biodiversity of the accessible community DNA by fractioning the metagenomic DNA as a function of (i) vertical soil sampling, (ii) density gradients (cell separation), (iii) cell lysis stringency, and (iv) DNA fragment size distribution. Each fraction had a unique genetic diversity, with different predominant and rare species (based on ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis [RISA] fingerprinting and phylochips). All fractions contributed to the number of bacterial groups uncovered in the metagenome, thus increasing the DNA pool for further applications. Indeed, we were able to access a more genetically diverse proportion of the metagenome (a gain of more than 80% compared to the best single extraction method), limit the predominance of a few genomes, and increase the species richness per sequencing effort. This work stresses the difference between extracted DNA pools and the currently inaccessible complete soil metagenome.

Indexed as

BacteriaMetagenomeSoil MicrobiologyBiodiversityDNADNA, BacterialDNA FingerprintingEcosystemMicrobial ConsortiaPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSoilDNADNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSoil

Identifiers

PMID21183646
PMCPMC3067229

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.