ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2014
rpoD gene pyrosequencing for the assessment of Pseudomonas diversity in a water sample from the Woluwe River.
Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metagenomic analysis of microbiome spatial dynamics in urban river confluence affected by city wastewater.Genomics & informatics · 2025Article
- Green Extracellular Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles byMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Opening a next-generation black box: Ecological trends for hundreds of species-like taxa uncovered within a single bacterial >99% 16S rRNA operational taxonomic unit.Molecular ecology resources · 2021Article
- Article
- Diversity of pathogenic Pseudomonas isolated from citrus in Tunisia.AMB Express · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Uncommonly isolated clinical Pseudomonas: identification and phylogenetic assignation.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A water sample from a noncontaminated site at the source of the Woluwe River (Belgium) was analyzed by culture-dependent and -independent methods. Pseudomonas isolates were identified by sequencing and analysis of the rpoD gene. Cultureindependent methods consisted of cloning and pyrosequencing of a Pseudomonas rpoD amplicon from total DNA extracted from the same sample and amplified with selective rpoD gene primers. Among a total of 14,540 reads, 6,228 corresponded to Pseudomonas rpoD gene sequences by a BLAST analysis in the NCBI database. The selection criteria for the reads were sequences longer than 400 bp, an average Q40 value greater than 25, and>85% identity with a Pseudomonas species. Of the 6,228 Pseudomonas rpoD sequences, 5,345 sequences met the established criteria for selection. Sequences were clustered by phylogenetic analysis and by use of the QIIME software package. Representative sequences of each cluster were assigned by BLAST analysis to a known Pseudomonas species when the identity with the type strain was greater than or equal to 96%. Twenty-six species distributed among 12 phylogenetic groups or subgroups within the genus were detected by pyrosequencing. Pseudomonas stutzeri, P. moraviensis, and P. simiae were the only cultured species not detected by pyrosequencing. The predominant phylogenetic group within the Pseudomonas genus was the P. fluorescens group, as determined by culture-dependent and -independent analyses. In all analyses, a high number of putative novel phylospecies was found: 10 were identified in the cultured strains and 246 were detected by pyrosequencing, indicating that the diversity of Pseudomonas species has not been fully described.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.