ArticleEcotoxicology (London, England)2014
Comparative survey of bacterial and archaeal communities in high arsenic shallow aquifers using 454 pyrosequencing and traditional methods.
Article in Ecotoxicology (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Harnessing the Ecological and Genomic Adaptability of the Bacterial Genus Massilia for Environmental and Industrial Applications.Microbial biotechnology · 2025Review
- Ammonia-oxidizing archaea adapted better to the dark, alkaline oligotrophic karst cave than their bacterial counterparts.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Diversity and arsenic-metabolizing gene clusters of indigenous arsenate-reducing bacteria in high arsenic groundwater of the Hetao Plain, Inner Mongolia.Ecotoxicology (London, England) · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A survey of bacterial and archaeal community structure was carried out in 10 shallow tube wells in a high arsenic groundwater system located in Hetao Basin, Inner Mongolia by 16S rRNA gene based two-step nested PCR-DGGE, clone libraries and 454 pyrosequencing. 12 bacterial and 18 archaeal DGGE bands and 26-136 species-level OTUs were detected for all the samples. 299 bacterial and 283 archaeal 16S rRNA gene clones for two typical samples were identified by phylogenetic analysis. Most of the results from these different methods were consistent with the dominant bacterial populations. But the proportions of the microbial populations were mostly different and the bacterial communities in most of these samples from pyrosequencing were both more abundant and more diverse than those from the traditional methods. Even after quality filtering, pyrosequencing revealed some populations including Alishewanella, Sulfuricurvum, Arthrobacter, Sporosarcina and Algoriphagus which were not detected with traditional techniques. The most dominant bacterial populations in these samples identified as some arsenic, iron, nitrogen and sulfur reducing and oxidizing related populations including Acinetobacter, Pseudomonas, Flavobacterium, Brevundimonas, Massilia, Planococcus, and Aquabacterium and archaeal communities Nitrosophaera and Methanosaeta. Acinetobacter and Pseudomonas were distinctly abundant in most of these samples. Methanogens were found as the dominant archeal population with three methods. From the results of traditional methods, the dominant archaeal populations apparently changed from phylum Thaumarchaeota to Euryarchaeota with the arsenic concentrations increasing. But this structure dynamic change was not revealed with pyrosequencing. Our results imply that an integrated approach combining the traditional methods and next generation sequencing approaches to characterize the microbial communities in high arsenic groundwater is recommended.
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.