ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2013
Profiling in situ microbial community structure with an amplification microarray.
Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microbial Diversity in Deep-Subsurface Hot Brines of Northwest Poland: from Community Structure to Isolate Characteristics.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2020Article
- The biogeochemical vertical structure renders a meromictic volcanic lake a trap for geogenic CO2 (Lake Averno, Italy).PloS one · 2018Article
- Application of Microfluidics in Experimental Ecology: The Importance of Being Spatial.Frontiers in microbiology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to unify amplification, labeling, and microarray hybridization chemistries within a single, closed microfluidic chamber (an amplification microarray) and verify technology performance on a series of groundwater samples from an in situ field experiment designed to compare U(VI) mobility under conditions of various alkalinities (as HCO(3)(-)) during stimulated microbial activity accompanying acetate amendment. Analytical limits of detection were between 2 and 200 cell equivalents of purified DNA. Amplification microarray signatures were well correlated with 16S rRNA-targeted quantitative PCR results and hybridization microarray signatures. The succession of the microbial community was evident with and consistent between the two microarray platforms. Amplification microarray analysis of acetate-treated groundwater showed elevated levels of iron-reducing bacteria (Flexibacter, Geobacter, Rhodoferax, and Shewanella) relative to the average background profile, as expected. Identical molecular signatures were evident in the transect treated with acetate plus NaHCO(3), but at much lower signal intensities and with a much more rapid decline (to nondetection). Azoarcus, Thaurea, and Methylobacterium were responsive in the acetate-only transect but not in the presence of bicarbonate. Observed differences in microbial community composition or response to bicarbonate amendment likely had an effect on measured rates of U reduction, with higher rates probable in the part of the field experiment that was amended with bicarbonate. The simplification in microarray-based work flow is a significant technological advance toward entirely closed-amplicon microarray-based tests and is generally extensible to any number of environmental monitoring applications.
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.