Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23887435›Full record

ArticleNature2013

Giovannoni et al. reply.

Stephen Giovannoni, Ben Temperton, Yanlin Zhao

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Viruses in astrobiology.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stephen GiovannoniDepartment of Microbiology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA.
Ben Temperton
Yanlin Zhao

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Replying to S. Våge, J. E. Storesund & T. F. Thingstad Nature 499, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12387 (2013). In the debate about top-down versus bottom-up control, most would argue that both are important. The most probable scenario is that in the absence of high rates of transport, the equilibrium between these competing processes determines bacterial abundance. In their Brief Communication Arising, Våge and co-workers respond to our Letter, arguing the case for defense specialism. ‘Defence specialism’ is not synonymous with ‘defence’. Because of the prevalence of viruses, it is probable that most bacteria have acquired defences against predation. ‘Defence specialism’ refers to success by defence, in the sense that a cell might allocate a large proportion of its resources to defence and thereby become successful.

Indexed as

Aquatic OrganismsBacteriophagesSeawater

Identifiers

PMID23887435

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.