Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25384534›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2014

Optimization of preservation and processing of sea anemones for microbial community analysis using molecular tools.

Joana Rocha, Francisco J R C Coelho, Luísa Peixe, Newton C M Gomes, Ricardo Calado

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joana Rocha1] Departamento de Biologia &CESAM, Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal [2] Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto, Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira n.° 228, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal.
Francisco J R C CoelhoDepartamento de Biologia &CESAM, Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.
Luísa PeixeREQUIMTE, Laboratório de Microbiologia, Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade do Porto, Rua de Jorge Viterbo Ferreira n. ° 228, 4050-313 Porto, Portugal.
Newton C M GomesDepartamento de Biologia &CESAM, Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.
Ricardo CaladoDepartamento de Biologia &CESAM, Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.
University of Aveiro · PTUniversidade do Porto · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Genes, BacterialAnimalsBacterial Typing TechniquesCryopreservationDenaturing Gradient Gel ElectrophoresisDNA FingerprintingMicrobiotaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSea AnemonesSpecimen HandlingRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID25384534
PMCPMC5381475
OpenAlexW2019816941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.