Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23839714›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of microbiology & biotechnology2014

Biases for detecting arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal mixture by terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP).

N Watanarojanaporn, A Longtonglang, N Boonkerd, P Tittabutr, J Lee, N Teaumroong

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of microbiology & biotechnology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

N WatanarojanapornSchool of Biotechnology, Institute of Agricultural Technology, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, 30000, Thailand.
A Longtonglang
N Boonkerd
P Tittabutr
J Lee
N Teaumroong

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) analysis of amplified ribosomal RNA genes is used for profiling microbial communities and sometimes for species richness and relative abundance estimation in environmental samples. However, the T-RFLP fingerprint may be subject to biases during the procedure, influencing the detection of real community structures in the environment. To investigate possible sources of T-RFLP bias, 18S rRNA gene clones derived from two arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal sequences were combined in simple pairwise mixes to assess the effects of polymerase chain reaction cycle number, plant genomic DNA purification method and varying template ratio on the template-to-product ratio as measured by relative T-RF peak area. Varying cycle numbers indicated that amplification was still in the exponential phase at the cycle numbers lower than 18, so these small cycle numbers were used for the comparison of template-to-product quantities. Relative abundance estimated from T-RF peak ratios varied with different purification procedures, but the best results, closest to input ratios, were obtained by using phenol-chloroform purification. The presence of an excess of unpurified non-target plant genomic DNA generated a bias towards lower or overestimation of relative abundance. We conclude that a low number of amplification cycles and stringent DNA purification are necessary for accurate mixed sample analysis by T-RFLP.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ErrorsPolymorphism, Restriction Fragment LengthBiasMolecular TypingMycological Typing TechniquesMycorrhizaeRNA, Ribosomal, 18SRNA, Ribosomal, 18S

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.