ArticleScientific reports2014
Optimization of preservation and processing of sea anemones for microbial community analysis using molecular tools.
Article in Scientific reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbial Distortion? Impacts of Delayed Preservation on Microbiome Diversity and Composition in a Marine Invertebrate.MicrobiologyOpen · 2025Article
- Evaluating Methods of Preserving Aquatic Invertebrates for Microbiome Analysis.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- DESS deconstructed: Is EDTA solely responsible for protection of high molecular weight DNA in this common tissue preservative?PloS one · 2020Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Microbial DNA Preparation Methods for Use With Massive and Branching Coral Growth Forms.Frontiers in microbiology · 2018Article
- Suitability of various DNA extraction methods for a traditional Chinese paocai system.Bioengineered · 2017Article
- Article
- The stable microbiome of inter and sub-tidal anemone species under increasing pCOScientific reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For several years, knowledge on the microbiome associated with marine invertebrates was impaired by the challenges associated with the characterization of bacterial communities. With the advent of culture independent molecular tools it is possible to gain new insights on the diversity and richness of microorganisms associated with marine invertebrates. In the present study, we evaluated if different preservation and processing methodologies (prior to DNA extraction) can affect the bacterial diversity retrieved from snakelocks anemone Anemonia viridis. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) community fingerprints were used as proxy to determine the bacterial diversity retrieved (H'). Statistical analyses indicated that preservation significantly affects H'. The best approach to preserve and process A. viridis biomass for bacterial community fingerprint analysis was flash freezing in liquid nitrogen (preservation) followed by the use of a mechanical homogenizer (process), as it consistently yielded higher H'. Alternatively, biomass samples can be processed fresh followed by cell lyses using a mechanical homogenizer or mortar &pestle. The suitability of employing these two alternative procedures was further reinforced by the quantification of the 16S rRNA gene; no significant differences were recorded when comparing these two approaches and the use of liquid nitrogen followed by processing with a mechanical homogenizer.
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.