Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24777140›Full record

ArticleNature communications2014

Faster growth of the major prokaryotic versus eukaryotic CO2 fixers in the oligotrophic ocean.

Mikhail V Zubkov

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The biomass distribution on Earth.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Contribution of cyanobacterial alkane production to the ocean hydrocarbon cycle.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015
    Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

1 author.

Mikhail V ZubkovOcean Biogeochemistry & Ecosystems Research Group, National Oceanography Centre, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Because maintenance of non-scalable cellular components--membranes and chromosomes--requires an increasing fraction of energy as cell size decreases, miniaturization comes at a considerable energetic cost for a phytoplanktonic cell. Consequently, if eukaryotes can use their superior energetic resources to acquire nutrients with more or even similar efficiency compared with prokaryotes, larger unicellular eukaryotes should be able to achieve higher growth rates than smaller cyanobacteria. Here, to test this hypothesis, we directly compare the intrinsic growth rates of phototrophic prokaryotes and eukaryotes from the equatorial to temperate South Atlantic using an original flow cytometric (14)CO2-tracer approach. At the ocean basin scale, cyanobacteria double their biomass twice as frequently as the picoeukaryotes indicating that the prokaryotes are faster growing CO2 fixers, better adapted to phototrophic living in the oligotrophic open ocean-the most extensive biome on Earth.

Indexed as

Atlantic OceanCarbon DioxideCarbon RadioisotopesEukaryotic CellsFlow CytometryLinear ModelsPhytoplanktonProkaryotic CellsSpecies SpecificityCarbon DioxideCarbon Radioisotopes

Identifiers

PMID24777140
PMCPMC4015317

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.