Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22842661›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Microbiology2012

Genomic insights into the marine sponge microbiome.

Ute Hentschel, Jörn Piel, Sandie M Degnan, Michael W Taylor

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 277 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
277citing papers in PubMed
39.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

277 citing papers in PubMed, 659 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. The chromosomal genome sequence of the spongeWellcome open research · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

217 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Ute HentschelJulius-von-Sachs-Institute for Biological Sciences, University of Würzburg, Julius-von-Sachs Platz 3, 97082 Würzburg, Germany. ute.hentschel@uni-wuerzburg.de
Jörn Piel
Sandie M Degnan
Michael W Taylor
University of Auckland · NZUniversity of Bonn · DEUniversity of Queensland · AUUniversity of Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Marine sponges (phylum Porifera) often contain dense and diverse microbial communities, which can constitute up to 35% of the sponge biomass. The genome of one sponge, Amphimedon queenslandica, was recently sequenced, and this has provided new insights into the origins of animal evolution. Complementary efforts to sequence the genomes of uncultivated sponge symbionts have yielded the first glimpse of how these intimate partnerships are formed. The remarkable microbial and chemical diversity of the sponge-microorganism association, coupled with its postulated antiquity, makes sponges important model systems for the study of metazoan host-microorganism interactions, and their evolution, as well as for enabling access to biotechnologically important symbiont-derived natural products. In this Review, we discuss our current understanding of the interactions between marine sponges and their microbial symbiotic consortia, and highlight recent insights into these relationships from genomic studies.

Indexed as

BiotaAnimalsAquatic OrganismsMetagenomePoriferaSymbiosis

Identifiers

PMID22842661
OpenAlexW1996758006

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.