Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23812890›Full record

ArticleExtremophiles : life under extreme conditions2013

Spatial pattern in Antarctica: what can we learn from Antarctic bacterial isolates?

Chun Wie Chong, Yuh Shan Goh, Peter Convey, David Pearce, Irene Kit Ping Tan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Extremophiles : life under extreme conditions, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

5 authors.

Chun Wie ChongDepartment of Life Sciences, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. chongchunwie@imu.edu.my
Yuh Shan Goh
Peter Convey
David Pearce
Irene Kit Ping Tan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A range of small- to moderate-scale studies of patterns in bacterial biodiversity have been conducted in Antarctica over the last two decades, most suggesting strong correlations between the described bacterial communities and elements of local environmental heterogeneity. However, very few of these studies have advanced interpretations in terms of spatially associated patterns, despite increasing evidence of patterns in bacterial biogeography globally. This is likely to be a consequence of restricted sampling coverage, with most studies to date focusing only on a few localities within a specific Antarctic region. Clearly, there is now a need for synthesis over a much larger spatial to consolidate the available data. In this study, we collated Antarctic bacterial culture identities based on the 16S rRNA gene information available in the literature and the GenBank database (n > 2,000 sequences). In contrast to some recent evidence for a distinct Antarctic microbiome, our phylogenetic comparisons show that a majority (~75 %) of Antarctic bacterial isolates were highly similar (≥99 % sequence similarity) to those retrieved from tropical and temperate regions, suggesting widespread distribution of eurythermal mesophiles in Antarctic environments. However, across different Antarctic regions, the dominant bacterial genera exhibit some spatially distinct diversity patterns analogous to those recently proposed for Antarctic terrestrial macroorganisms. Taken together, our results highlight the threat of cross-regional homogenisation in Antarctic biodiversity, and the imperative to include microbiota within the framework of biosecurity measures for Antarctica.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAntarctic RegionsBacteriaGenes, BacterialPhylogenyPhylogeographyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

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.