Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25171164›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Use of high throughput sequencing and light microscopy show contrasting results in a study of phytoplankton occurrence in a freshwater environment.

Xi Xiao, Hanne Sogge, Karin Lagesen, Ave Tooming-Klunderud, Kjetill S Jakobsen, Thomas Rohrlack

Abstract read
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 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  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. 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

6 authors.

Xi XiaoUniversity of Oslo, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, Oslo, Norway; Zhejiang University, Ocean College, Hangzhou, China.
Hanne SoggeUniversity of Oslo, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, Oslo, Norway.
Karin LagesenUniversity of Oslo, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, Oslo, Norway; Norwegian Sequencing Centre, Department of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Ave Tooming-KlunderudUniversity of Oslo, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, Oslo, Norway.
Kjetill S JakobsenUniversity of Oslo, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, Oslo, Norway.
Thomas RohrlackNorwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Ås, Norway; Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessing phytoplankton diversity is of primary importance for both basic and applied ecological studies. Following the advances in molecular methods, phytoplankton studies are switching from using classical microscopy to high throughput sequencing approaches. However, methodological comparisons of these approaches have rarely been reported. In this study, we compared the two methods, using a unique dataset of multiple water samples taken from a natural freshwater environment. Environmental DNA was extracted from 300 water samples collected weekly during 20 years, followed by high throughput sequencing of amplicons from the 16S and 18S rRNA hypervariable regions. For each water sample, phytoplankton diversity was also estimated using light microscopy. Our study indicates that species compositions detected by light microscopy and 454 high throughput sequencing do not always match. High throughput sequencing detected more rare species and picoplankton than light microscopy, and thus gave a better assessment of phytoplankton diversity. However, when compared to light microscopy, high throughput sequencing of 16S and 18S rRNA amplicons did not adequately identify phytoplankton at the species level. In summary, our study recommends a combined strategy using both morphological and molecular techniques.

Indexed as

Fresh WaterDNA, RibosomalHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMicroscopyPhylogenyPhytoplanktonRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 18SSequence Analysis, DNADNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 18S

Identifiers

PMID25171164
PMCPMC4149573

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.