Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23534863›Full record

ReviewThe New phytologist2013

Fungal community analysis by high-throughput sequencing of amplified markers--a user's guide.

Björn D Lindahl, R Henrik Nilsson, Leho Tedersoo, Kessy Abarenkov, Tor Carlsen, Rasmus Kjøller, Urmas Kõljalg, Taina Pennanen, Søren Rosendahl, Jan Stenlid and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The New phytologist, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 267 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
267citing 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

267 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Annual Dynamics of Mycobiota in Symptomatic Century-Old Trees ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

207 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

11 authors.

Björn D LindahlDepartment of Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7026, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
R Henrik NilssonDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Box 461, SE-405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Leho TedersooInstitute of Ecology and Earth Sciences/Natural History Museum, University of Tartu, 46 Vanemuise St., 51014, Tartu, Estonia.
Kessy AbarenkovInstitute of Ecology and Earth Sciences/Natural History Museum, University of Tartu, 46 Vanemuise St., 51014, Tartu, Estonia.
Tor CarlsenDepartment of Biology, University of Oslo, PO Box 1066, Blindern, N-0316, Oslo, Norway.
Rasmus KjøllerDepartment of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 2D, 1353, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Urmas KõljalgInstitute of Ecology and Earth Sciences/Natural History Museum, University of Tartu, 46 Vanemuise St., 51014, Tartu, Estonia.
Taina PennanenThe Finnish Forest Research Institute, PL 18, FI-01301, Vantaa, Finland.
Søren RosendahlDepartment of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 2D, 1353, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jan StenlidDepartment of Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7026, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.
Håvard KauserudDepartment of Biology, University of Oslo, PO Box 1066, Blindern, N-0316, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Novel high-throughput sequencing methods outperform earlier approaches in terms of resolution and magnitude. They enable identification and relative quantification of community members and offer new insights into fungal community ecology. These methods are currently taking over as the primary tool to assess fungal communities of plant-associated endophytes, pathogens, and mycorrhizal symbionts, as well as free-living saprotrophs. Taking advantage of the collective experience of six research groups, we here review the different stages involved in fungal community analysis, from field sampling via laboratory procedures to bioinformatics and data interpretation. We discuss potential pitfalls, alternatives, and solutions. Highlighted topics are challenges involved in: obtaining representative DNA/RNA samples and replicates that encompass the targeted variation in community composition, selection of marker regions and primers, options for amplification and multiplexing, handling of sequencing errors, and taxonomic identification. Without awareness of methodological biases, limitations of markers, and bioinformatics challenges, large-scale sequencing projects risk yielding artificial results and misleading conclusions.

Indexed as

Genetic MarkersBiotaComputational BiologyDNA, FungalDNA, IntergenicDNA PrimersFungiHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMycorrhizaePolymerase Chain ReactionSoil MicrobiologyDNA, FungalDNA, IntergenicDNA PrimersGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID23534863
PMCPMC3712477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.