Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24808136›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2014

Simultaneous assessment of the macrobiome and microbiome in a bulk sample of tropical arthropods through DNA metasystematics.

Joel Gibson, Shadi Shokralla, Teresita M Porter, Ian King, Steven van Konynenburg, Daniel H Janzen, Winnie Hallwachs, Mehrdad Hajibabaei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing 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

99 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Joel GibsonDepartment of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1;
Shadi ShokrallaDepartment of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1;Department of Microbiology, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt 35516;
Teresita M PorterDepartment of Biology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4K1; and.
Ian KingDepartment of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1;
Steven van KonynenburgDepartment of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1;
Daniel H JanzenDepartment of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104 mhajibab@uoguelph.ca djanzen@sas.upenn.edu.
Winnie HallwachsDepartment of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Mehrdad HajibabaeiDepartment of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1; mhajibab@uoguelph.ca djanzen@sas.upenn.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventional assessments of ecosystem sample composition are based on morphology-based or DNA barcode identification of individuals. Both approaches are costly and time-consuming, especially when applied to the large number of specimens and taxa commonly included in ecological investigations. Next-generation sequencing approaches can overcome the bottleneck of individual specimen isolation and identification by simultaneously sequencing specimens of all taxa in a bulk mixture. Here we apply multiple parallel amplification primers, multiple DNA barcode markers, 454-pyrosequencing, and Illumina MiSeq sequencing to the same sample to maximize recovery of the arthropod macrobiome and the bacterial and other microbial microbiome of a bulk arthropod sample. We validate this method with a complex sample containing 1,066 morphologically distinguishable arthropods from a tropical terrestrial ecosystem with high taxonomic diversity. Multiamplicon next-generation DNA barcoding was able to recover sequences corresponding to 91% of the distinguishable individuals in a bulk environmental sample, as well as many species present as undistinguishable tissue. 454-pyrosequencing was able to recover 10 more families of arthropods and 30 more species than did conventional Sanger sequencing of each individual specimen. The use of other loci (16S and 18S ribosomal DNA gene regions) also added the detection of species of microbes associated with these terrestrial arthropods. This method greatly decreases the time and money necessary to perform DNA-based comparisons of biodiversity among ecosystem samples. This methodology opens the door to much cheaper and increased capacity for ecological and evolutionary studies applicable to a wide range of socio-economic issues, as well as a basic understanding of how the world works.

Indexed as

BiodiversityAnimalsArthropodsCosta RicaDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicEcological Parameter MonitoringEcosystemElectron Transport Complex IVMetagenomicsMicrobiotaMolecular Sequence DataPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 18SSequence Analysis, DNAElectron Transport Complex IVRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 18SCosta Ricacytochrome c oxidase subunit IinsectMalaise trapNGS

Identifiers

PMID24808136
PMCPMC4050544

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.