Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24205184›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Improved statistical analysis of low abundance phenomena in bimodal bacterial populations.

Friedrich Reinhard, Jan Roelof van der Meer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

2 authors.

Friedrich ReinhardDepartment of Fundamental Microbiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Jan Roelof van der Meer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate detection of subpopulation size determinations in bimodal populations remains problematic yet it represents a powerful way by which cellular heterogeneity under different environmental conditions can be compared. So far, most studies have relied on qualitative descriptions of population distribution patterns, on population-independent descriptors, or on arbitrary placement of thresholds distinguishing biological ON from OFF states. We found that all these methods fall short of accurately describing small population sizes in bimodal populations. Here we propose a simple, statistics-based method for the analysis of small subpopulation sizes for use in the free software environment R and test this method on real as well as simulated data. Four so-called population splitting methods were designed with different algorithms that can estimate subpopulation sizes from bimodal populations. All four methods proved more precise than previously used methods when analyzing subpopulation sizes of transfer competent cells arising in populations of the bacterium Pseudomonas knackmussii B13. The methods' resolving powers were further explored by bootstrapping and simulations. Two of the methods were not severely limited by the proportions of subpopulations they could estimate correctly, but the two others only allowed accurate subpopulation quantification when this amounted to less than 25% of the total population. In contrast, only one method was still sufficiently accurate with subpopulations smaller than 1% of the total population. This study proposes a number of rational approximations to quantifying small subpopulations and offers an easy-to-use protocol for their implementation in the open source statistical software environment R.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBacteriaModels, StatisticalPopulationSoftware

Identifiers

PMID24205184
PMCPMC3813492

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.