Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24887330›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Bacterial diversity assessment in Antarctic terrestrial and aquatic microbial mats: a comparison between bidirectional pyrosequencing and cultivation.

Bjorn Tytgat, Elie Verleyen, Dagmar Obbels, Karolien Peeters, Aaike De Wever, Sofie D'hondt, Tim De Meyer, Wim Van Criekinge, Wim Vyverman, Anne Willems

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

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

10 authors.

Bjorn TytgatLaboratory for Microbiology, Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Elie VerleyenLaboratory of Protistology and Aquatic Ecology, Department of Biology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Dagmar ObbelsLaboratory of Protistology and Aquatic Ecology, Department of Biology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Karolien PeetersLaboratory for Microbiology, Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Aaike De WeverLaboratory of Protistology and Aquatic Ecology, Department of Biology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Sofie D'hondtLaboratory of Protistology and Aquatic Ecology, Department of Biology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Tim De MeyerLaboratory of Bioinformatics and Computational Genomics, Department of Mathematical Modelling, Statistics and Bioinformatics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Wim Van CriekingeLaboratory of Bioinformatics and Computational Genomics, Department of Mathematical Modelling, Statistics and Bioinformatics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Wim VyvermanLaboratory of Protistology and Aquatic Ecology, Department of Biology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Anne WillemsLaboratory for Microbiology, Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The application of high-throughput sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene has increased the size of microbial diversity datasets by several orders of magnitude, providing improved access to the rare biosphere compared with cultivation-based approaches and more established cultivation-independent techniques. By contrast, cultivation-based approaches allow the retrieval of both common and uncommon bacteria that can grow in the conditions used and provide access to strains for biotechnological applications. We performed bidirectional pyrosequencing of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene diversity in two terrestrial and seven aquatic Antarctic microbial mat samples previously studied by heterotrophic cultivation. While, not unexpectedly, 77.5% of genera recovered by pyrosequencing were not among the isolates, 25.6% of the genera picked up by cultivation were not detected by pyrosequencing. To allow comparison between both techniques, we focused on the five phyla (Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes and Deinococcus-Thermus) recovered by heterotrophic cultivation. Four of these phyla were among the most abundantly recovered by pyrosequencing. Strikingly, there was relatively little overlap between cultivation and the forward and reverse pyrosequencing-based datasets at the genus (17.1-22.2%) and OTU (3.5-3.6%) level (defined on a 97% similarity cut-off level). Comparison of the V1-V2 and V3-V2 datasets of the 16S rRNA gene revealed remarkable differences in number of OTUs and genera recovered. The forward dataset missed 33% of the genera from the reverse dataset despite comprising 50% more OTUs, while the reverse dataset did not contain 40% of the genera of the forward dataset. Similar observations were evident when comparing the forward and reverse cultivation datasets. Our results indicate that the region under consideration can have a large impact on perceived diversity, and should be considered when comparing different datasets. Finally, a high number of OTUs could not be classified using the RDP reference database, suggesting the presence of a large amount of novel diversity.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationTemperatureAntarctic RegionsBacteriaBase CompositionDatabases, Nucleic AcidPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSeawaterSequence Analysis, DNARNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID24887330
PMCPMC4041716

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.